LexObserver Columnist Gerry Yurkevicz will be providing regular updates and analysis related to the Lexington High School building project.
Our new Lexington High School (LHS) is a big deal. It will be around for generations. It will be visible every day. It most likely will cost more than $600 million. The new LHS will impact students, staff, the larger community, and taxpayers.
The educational importance, scope and cost of the project cry out for robust community engagement, transparency, and positive discussion. From the Center coffee shops to the pickleball court, I sense residents are aware but really not informed. The one take-away I would leave with readers is to participate as best you can. Don’t wait. The School Building Committee’s (SBC’s) Lexington High School Building Project website contains a wealth of information. The next community meeting happens on Wednesday, August 14 at 6:30 pm at Cary Memorial Hall (or via zoom). On August 15, there is a summit to discuss whether to include a new field house and pool in the scope.
SBC Chair and School Committee Member Kathleen Lenihan says, “building a new and/or renovated LHS to serve our community and generations of students stretching into the 22nd century is a monumental project. The SBC will continue collaborating with other town boards and committees and reaching out to residents. It will take all of us working together to make the new and improved LHS a reality. Fortunately, working together for the common good is a Lexington tradition. We hope to hear from many people at the Aug 14 Community Forum.”
In this piece, we provide an overview of current key issues associated with the new LHS. We’ll follow up with more detailed posts on some of these issues.
Issue 1: The Location of the New High School
If there is a hot button issue, it is the location of the new LHS. The general idea is for students to remain in the current LHS while the new building is being constructed. When the new building is complete, the old building will be torn down and that site will be converted into outdoor recreation facilities/athletic fields. As shown in the “massing figures” in the chart below, three of the five options being considered in detail follow this thinking.
Source: https://www.lhsproject.lexingtonma.org/
Constructing the new building in the existing recreation fields allows the current building to remain in use throughout construction, minimizing disruption; provides a single, economic construction phase; and yields the most freedom for educational planning.
Under all the options, recreational fields are eventually replaced. However, some believe the options of building on the existing fields harm the community by bifurcating the fields and breaking the connectivity within the recreation complex.
Select Board Member Suzanne Barry at the June 17 Board brainstorming session on the new LHS opened by stating that “disturbing the fields for a laydown area or even bifurcating is a non-starter, and affects our entire community. People in their 90s to pregnant women benefit from this area. I’m not against a new high school but it is not just going to affect the students and teachers, but our entire community. That is my line in the pavement or dirt – those fields need to be left intact.”
Former Select Board Member Peter Kelley has gone as far as to write a letter to the Massachusetts School Board Authority (MSBA) stating that the “proposed new school and fields would divide Lexington’s open space/recreation complex in half, destroying the uniqueness of this facility.”
There are also a host of environmental and wetland issues that will need to be resolved to finalize the location, including legislative actions that must occur. There is more to come on the location issue.
Issue 2: The Scope of the New High School
The vision of the future educational program and the expected enrollment for Lexington drive the development of the new LHS. Lexington has devoted much effort to developing the educational program, including class size, scheduling, and teaching methodology and structure across all the academic disciplines. The future enrollment also drives the scope: Lexington is planning for 2,395 students, a 3.3% increase from 2023/24 levels. Space estimates were developed to address the goals and vision of the educational program and projected enrollment, as well as consider MSBA guidelines. Taken together, the target size estimate for the new LHS totals 441,000 square feet, over 25% larger than the current structure. The existing LHS is overcrowded. The MSBA has approved these plans and assumptions.
Issue 3: The Sustainability Measures
Having spent my career in the energy field, I was somewhat taken aback when a resident asked me “why the new high school has to resemble a renewable energy power plant?” Lexington wants to be a leader, as evidenced by the 2023 Climate and Resilience Plan. Time after time, Town Meeting has shown its support for actions and investment supporting the transition away from fossil fuels. The Town’s Integrated Building Design and Construction Policy (IBDCP), support of stretch building codes, and SBC’s goals provide the framework for the sustainability measures at the new LHS. Initial plans include designing an all-electric building, adding solar and battery storage, installing geothermal heating and cooling systems, and building to minimize energy use intensity. Lexington is proposing more sustainability measures than other similar new high schools.
Preliminary cost estimates for sustainability measures total between $60 – $80 million. These are big numbers and there is the feeling of concern among some residents. However, there are a lot of incentives that may be available to reduce this cost significantly, from Mass Save, the Federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and the MSBA. Preliminary life cycle cost analysis over a 75-year period performed by the project team suggests very good paybacks, maybe as short as 1 year, with carbon emission reduction of over 50%. Thinking green may make a lot of sense.
Issue 4: The Cost for the New High School
The “conceptual cost estimate” of the five options on the table during the current “Preliminary Design Program” or feasibility phase vary between $600 to $635 million, a range of only 6% between low and high. Four of the five plans call for full new construction, while one is a renovation and addition. The renovation/addition option has the highest estimated cost. At first glance, the small difference in costs between options may strike some as odd. One might reasonably ask: where is the high, low and base case, which are typically shown to frame investment choices and decisions? However, stepping back, the cost estimates are just a function of the square footage estimate, which is the requirement to deliver the educational program. The square footage requirement is costed out at a market dollar rate per square foot. Any design tinkering has only a small impact on cost. Lexington is not forcing the design to meet a budget: the program drives the cost.
There is pushback by some residents on the addition/renovation option: they maintain that this option should represent a lower cost than new construction. Mr. Kelley’s letter to the MSBA concludes that “unfortunately, the filed add/reno plans do not preserve the historic and most usable sections of the existing school. The proposed add/reno plans destroy recently added buildings and renovations. An add/reno approach is clearly Lexington’s best path…and can be successful and cost effective.” Residents earlier this year provided a number of addition/renovation ideas to the SBC which appear to have been rejected. Now, the SBC may be taking a second look at some of these ideas. At the August 5 SBC meeting, SMMA, the Town’s architect, agreed to conduct some high-level estimating, but develop no new official options, on “adaptive reuse” and a deeper dive on the cost of space.
Many residents have asked why these early cost estimates for the new LHS appear so much higher than other high schools. The SBC Team has developed cost comparisons to new high schools in Arlington, Belmont, Revere, and Waltham. In developing these comparisons, the project team has tried to “normalize” costs for size, timing, escalation, and scope differences to enable more “apples-to-apples” comparisons. As we all know from our home projects, construction costs for buildings skyrocketed during the pandemic and remain at elevated levels. In addition, the dates where contractors’ bids are locked in (i.e., “bid dates”) vary: Belmont’s was in 2016, Revere’s is not until 2025, and Lexington’s will not occur until 2028. Lexington also proposes more sustainability measures than these other schools.
The chart below shows the unadjusted and adjusted (for size, escalation and scope) cost per square foot for Lexington compared to these 4 comparable high schools. Unadjusted, Lexington has significantly higher costs than other schools. However, when adjusted, Lexington is still the highest, but its estimated cost per square foot of $1,364 is now only 14% higher than the average cost for the other schools.
Source: Yurkevicz analysis from SBC website
Lexington is not financially tackling this project alone. At this time, estimates suggest the MSBA will provide a $100 million grant (or about 16% of the total cost). The MSBA has significant caps and limits on reimbursement (e.g., only $550 per square foot for building space) and a long list of ineligible costs. These restrictions reduce Lexington’s expected cost reimbursement from the Commonwealth. As mentioned above, Mass Save and the Federal government may contribute another $40 million. Thus, the net cost to Lexington might be in the $400 – $500 million range. In addition, the Town’s Capital Project Stabilization fund of at least $40 million can be used to further reduce the upfront cost or phase-in and soften the expected $2,000+ annual property tax increase per family.
Issue 5: The Decision-Making Process and Timeline
The new LHS project has a long timeline but has a number of very important near-term milestones. As with many large projects, the upfront planning, analysis, and decisions set in motion actions that may be difficult to modify in the future. We are currently in the “Initial Design Phase,” where Dore & Whittier, Lexington’s Project Manager, will submit, on behalf of Lexington and SMMA, a “Preliminary Design Program” and a “Preferred Schematic Report.” The SBC vote on what options to choose is scheduled to occur in the fall. Approval by the MSBA Board of Directors is necessary to progress into the next step, the schematic design in 2025. Placeholders for Town Meeting and debt exclusion votes are penciled in for November or December 2025. A vote in favor of the debt exclusion would allow for a property tax increase above the amount usually allowed in order to fund the project.
Source: https://www.lhsproject.lexingtonma.org
What are the roles of the different groups involved with the new LHS? The SBC is a group of 15 individuals, chaired by Kathleen Lenihan, who is also a member of the School Committee. The formation of the SBC is a requirement of the MSBA. The SBC is a collaborative body that works directly with Dore & Whittier (Lexington’s project manager) and SMMA (Lexington’s architect) to oversee the design of the building, provide input, assist in managing MSBA’s requirements, and take required MSBA votes. The MSBA requires demonstrated community support to move forward. Enter Town Meeting and the Select Board. The Select Board is charged with placing the Debt Exclusion Referendum in front of Lexington voters. A 2/3 vote of the Board (4 out of the 5 Members) is needed to place an exclusion question on the ballot. Based on the discussion at the brainstorming session at the June 17 Board Meeting, it was not yet clear to this observer whether the support was there. Select Board Chair Doug Lucente concluded at this session that “the School Committee’s and the Superintendent’s role is to advocate for the children in the schools, but we also have the rest of the taxpayers to be concerned about. We want to sell a project that they will buy.” With certainty, there is much more to come before any vote in late 2025.
Issue 6: Community Engagement
Community engagement on the new LHS began back in 2017. The Lexington SBC website is the central place to find information. There is a huge amount of information: documents, minutes, meeting calendar, recordings of meetings, etc. The next community meeting will occur on Wednesday, August 14. Expect heightened outreach to multiple segments of the community during the next few years.
Issue 7: The Add-Ons to the High School
Unfortunately, the $600+ million cost does not cover everything that the Town and its residents may want. Discussion will occur on whether to construct a pool, a field house, and include the School Central Office in the plans. These items are not eligible for MSBA grants. The pool and the field house would be separated from the project and be subject to a separate debt exclusion vote. Most likely the incremental costs of these add-ons would increase the overall project cost to well over $700 million. On Thursday, August 15, a summit will occur, involving the SBC, Select Board, and other groups, to discuss the pool and field house.
Some Final Thoughts: Hopes and Fears
The new LHS is a complex issue and project. Here are a few observations as I continue my periodic reporting for the LexObserver:
- Quality of decision-making: The amount of information to be processed and complexity of the decisions appear overwhelming. The SBC appears to be doing a decent job in sorting through it. There is a process to carefully consider strategic issues, with introduction, discussion, and confirmation tasks, with time for reflection. My hope is that this process will work. My fear is that the upfront milestone timeline will result in rushed decisions that folks will not be happy with later.
- Role of Lexington’s consultants: Full disclosure: I am a retired management consultant. The SBC’s approved meeting minutes lists 18 names from the Town (including all the SBC) and 14 names from our consultants, including Dore & Whittier and SMMA. Both firms appear to have exemplary qualifications. But based on my experience, that’s a lot of consultants in the room. My hope is that the consultants do their job as advisors and experts. My fear is that they will overly shape decisions, which may not reflect the values and wishes of residents. I saw it happen frequently during my career!
- Program, budget, and MSBA reimbursement: Construction costs have skyrocketed and the MSBA has a long list of caps, limits, and exclusions for reimbursement. The MSBA’s reimbursement rate levels do not appear to have kept up with inflation. Currently, we expect to get about 16% back from the state. However, new high schools in Arlington, Belmont, Revere, and Waltham are being reimbursed at much higher rates, between 27-48% of project cost. My hope is that we can somehow get more from the Commonwealth. My fear is that Lexington is stuck and will have to borrow to fund more of the inflationary costs.
- Community engagement: advocacy versus information: The SBC appears to have a laser focus on engagement. My hope is that the SBC “walks the talk,” by providing transparent information, discussion which openly involves consideration of pros and cons, and then considers the community input in its decisions. My fear is community engagement will spiral, like much of our society, into advocacy, spin and narrative, and residents will become frustrated. I think most would agree that resident frustration won’t be good at the time of the debt exclusion vote!
I have enjoyed reading your coverage of this in the Observer, Gerry. But you state “In 15 months, the town will vote on whether to approve a debt exclusion”, as if it was a fact. While it is the hope and plan of the project’s proponents, but much has to happen in the interim before it becomes a fact. Suggest you insert a qualifier.
These costs are as high as they are now because we have kicked the can down the road for ten years. We MUST build this building. Delaying will only result in higher costs.
Thanks for your report. Unfortunately — from my perspective as, like yourself, a former consultant (at BCG) — your report fails to address 2 critical issues:
(1) I hear that the projected cost of the new HS started at $300-350 million; it is now above $600 million; we need to understand in detail why the cost has risen by $300 million or so since the Town started working on this.
(2) a typical new house in Lexington for a family of 4 used to have 2,500-3,000 sq ft of living space with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms; today’s $2.5-3 million new homes across Town now include a cooled wine cellar, an indoor movie theater with plush armchairs for a dozen spectators, saunas, etc, etc in 6-7,000 sq ft of living space; as someone who studied calculus in France’s equivalent of the Bronx HS of Science (or of LHS’s most advanced math and physics courses) in classes of 45 students with just a blackboard and chalk — calculus is calculus… — we need to know whether the current design of the new HS is akin to what a typical Lexington house used to be, or to today’s extravagantly luxurious $2.5-3 million new homes.
As the father of two now successful professionals who as kids were made to work to earn their pocket money, I believe that growing up in a $2.5-3 million home — or studying in a similarly plush HS — is not the right way to educate a new generation of involved and self-reliant youngsters. It is actually counter-productive.
And money does not fall off the trees: while Lexington is more and more a “ghetto for millionaires”, some of our residents are still (or at least I hope so for the sake of diversity) lower middle class families for whom paying an extra $2,000 in annual taxes is not painless.
Hi Gerry – I appreciate your article. I think you objectively stated the current state of affairs. A few things have bothered me about the process so far. To name a few: not designing to a budget; the presumed use of the fields; presumed use of the stabilization fund.
Not considering cost and solely designing to a philosophy or plan – this seems out of touch with reality. We are all acutely aware of inflation and high costs. Engineering without the constraint of cost is really not engineering. It is presumptuous for the SBC to feel that they can design whatever they want and spend whatever they want.
The same can be said for the SBCs presumed use of the recreational fields and the town stabilization fund.
What’s most disappointing is that we as a town were not given the opportunity to debate and decide what the boundaries should be ahead of time. I believe if we had told the SBC your budget is 500 million and not more, and stay off the fields, that the Engineers would have designed a school to meet the needs of the Ed Plan while staying within those constraints.
I think we still have time to turn things around. The Engineers should consider a radical renovation project that preserves as much of the old school that should be preserved (sustainability and waste reduction) and delivers the spirit of the Ed Plan in the most creative and cost-effective way possible. Doing so makes Lexington *financially* sustainable and saves dollars to pay the real purveyors of our kids education – the teachers. Lexington SBC and Town Selectmen should work to make this happen.
Is there some educational benefit to having all the fields on one side of the high school? I’m having trouble understanding the objection to this plan as a sticking point.
The “Adjustments” in the Apple-to-Apples cost comparison appear to be your own. I would like to see your methodology.