LexObserver Columnist Gerry Yurkevicz will be providing regular updates and analysis related to the Lexington High School building project.
Fall promises to be an active season for the Lexington High School Building Project (LHS). There will be numerous opportunities for residents to weigh-in with their thoughts on the estimated $600+ million project. The School Building Committee (SBC) will hold scores of meetings with community and stakeholder groups to obtain feedback on the project, which is projected to raise property taxes by 10-14%. The SBC is expected to vote on November 12 to determine the preferred design concept to be included in the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) to be submitted for approval to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).
It is critical for residents and stakeholders to provide their input now. It will be difficult for the Town to make material changes later in the process. Residents would then be left with an “up or down” debt exclusion vote, tentatively scheduled for December 2025.
Why so big?
Much is being made of the total cost of the new LHS. However, the cost is a direct function of Lexington’s expected high school enrollment, the space requirements informed by Lexington’s Educational Plan, and MSBA guidelines (e.g., on classroom size). Lexington needs to build a big school, perhaps as much as 461,516 square feet, because Lexington has a large expected enrollment of 2,395 students (a figure that has been accepted for planning and funding purposes by the MSBA).
High-level analysis by the Lexington Observer, shown in the chart below, suggests that the size option being considered is consistent with other new high schools in Eastern Massachusetts. Lexington is planning for 193 square feet of space per student, which is 9% less than the median of 211 square feet per student for 11 other new high schools, including 5 that were also designed by SMMA, Lexington’s design firm. Lexington’s expected enrollment is 50% higher than these other schools. Focusing on comparing Lexington to the median value of a sample of other high schools is preferred to comparing to individual high schools, since each school may be somewhat different and unique. Lexington appears to be pointed in the right direction for space planning.
Source: MSBA; Lexington Observer analysis
Cost: Renovation or New Construction
Based on its size, the new LHS will be expensive. The high price tag also reflects elevated post-pandemic construction costs in the Boston area. Lexington also plans to include more sustainability measures, which may add 10% more to the total cost, but could have a beneficial financial impact with a short payback after considering operating cost savings over the expected 75-year life of the new high school.
The SBC has provided cost comparisons that help to show the impact of inflation, construction cost escalation, and scope additions on preliminary cost estimates for LHS compared to other recently planned and constructed high schools.
The five LHS options currently under consideration include 4 new construction schemes and 1 addition/renovation concept. All are in the $600-$635 million price range.
Source: SBC
Residents and stakeholders have voiced concern that cheaper renovation options have not been adequately considered. In the fall, in part based on this feedback, expect the SBC to present additional information on possible renovation options that may utilize more of the existing school. In general, Massachusetts has preferred new construction versus addition/renovation in building new schools. According to MSBA data, new construction represents 73% of new high schools approved for funding by the MSBA since 2013.
Decision Time
At its November 12th meeting, the SBC is currently scheduled to narrow the five design options to a single selection and vote for a “preferred schematic design.” There is not much wiggle room to make significant changes to the square footage once the PSR is submitted. Between now and November, the SBC will address, discuss, and make decisions on meaty design issues in 19 separate areas. The two most important are likely:
- Deciding between addition and renovation or new construction options.
- Deciding between building on the existing recreation fields or the existing high school footprint.
Other PSR-related areas include deciding on (a) total square footage, (b) parking, including choices between standard and structured options, (c) driveways and circulation, (d) whether to have 3 or 4 floors, (e) embodied carbon goals, (f) construction materials to consider, and (g) future expansion pathways. The design decisions represent a lot of work over a short period of time.
Community and Stakeholder Outreach
As Kathleen Lenihan, Chair of the SBC, wrote in a recent memo to stakeholders, “we value our partnership with the many Town Boards, Committees, and the general public, all of which are important stakeholders. In the next 3+ months, we aim to keep you updated on our progress and answer any questions you may have.” The SBC is hoping for at least 30 outreach sessions with at least 11 stakeholder groups, including the Select Board, School Committee, and Recreation Committee. Included in the plan are at least two General Public Community Forums scheduled for September 18 and October 15. Key topics to be discussed with stakeholders include (1) exploring the projected 75-year life cycle costs, such as sustainability investments, (2) re-examining costs and cost drivers, including impacts of enrollment, building or not-building on the recreation fields, and constructing a 3 vs. 4-story building, and (3) narrowing and deciding between addition/renovation and new construction options.
Source: SBC
To provide further engagement opportunities, Select Board and SBC member Joe Pato has scheduled informal coffee talk sessions. Eight people attended the first session at Emery Park this past Tuesday. Additional sessions, including night and weekend times, are being planned over the next few weeks in September.
Left unsaid is how the SBC will engage and incorporate feedback from segments of the public that are advocating for other options. For example, a group of Lexington residents has established LHS 4 ALL, whose goal is to create a more affordable new high school. In public and online forums, the group is advocating for (1) reducing total cost substantially and (2) choosing the addition/renovation option to reduce cost, waste and minimize impact on the recreational fields.
General Public Community Forum #6 was held on August 14. In a spirited exchange spanning 2+ hours, 25 residents asked questions and expressed opinions on the new high school: 19 people expressed concerns with one or more aspects of the project. Common themes included the overall high cost and impact on taxpayers, the proposed size, and the negative impact on recreation fields and abutters of new construction. A number expressed an ongoing and a broader town-wide issue that higher real estate taxes are driving the middle-class out of Lexington. The negative feedback is not surprising — the voices of advocates for a new high school have been previously heard at over 100+ past meetings to develop the Educational Program and plan the new space. When topics like cost and tax increases begin to surface, other segments of the community begin to take notice and participate.
Field House, Pool and Central Office
The issues of a new field house and pool are still outstanding. These would need to be separate projects from the new LHS. Neither are eligible for MSBA funding. A field house or pool would require a separate warrant article, separate ballot vote, and separate funding from the LHS project. The options for the new LHS include gymnasium and other space that will accommodate all physical education requirements, a field house and pool are therefore not needed to carry out the Educational Program. However, it may make sense that in planning for the new LHS, land space could be allocated for a field house or pool, should the Town vote separately to include either or both later. Since the existing field house is nearing the end of its useful life, Lexington will need to address these issues at some point.
On August 15, the Town convened an Informational Summit, including the Select Board, Appropriation Committee, Capital Expenditures Committee, School Committee, School Building Committee and Recreation Committee to begin addressing the field house and pool. A number of options were provided to help launch the discussion:
- Field house: 5 options to either renovate, expand, or build a new field house, of various sizes, conceptually priced between $30-$79 million.
- Pool: a new construction option priced at $25 million.
Field House Options
Source: SBC
Town staff presented a preliminary real estate tax impact analysis. The tax increase for the median Lexington residential homeowner would range at least between 1-3% annually (about $150-500) depending on the field house and pool option chosen as well as the structure of the debt financing. These increases are in addition to the 10-14% increase from the new LHS alone.
Summit participants surfaced a number of issues with their questions:
- Who are the advocates for the field house and the pool, and how much weight should the Town give to their advocacy?
- What are the community access plans for a field house or pool?
- What are the additional operating costs, especially for the pool? Might ongoing costs trigger a need for an operating override?
- How would spending on a field house or pool impact other projects in Lexington’s capital improvement plan (e.g., for the East Lexington fire house)?
These and other questions will be subject of future discussions and summits.
Specifying space for the School Department’s Central Office is also still up for discussion. The MSBA allows towns to include the Central Office in projects, but will not provide funding. Decision-making on space planning for the Central Office will also occur during the fall. Some SBC members have argued that including flexible square footage for the Central Office in the plans may act as a hedge against future enrollment growth. Lexington could see enrollment growth from the additional housing expected due to the MBTA Communities Act.
Some Final Thoughts on the Path Forward
Each and every resident I have talked to has expressed the view that Lexington needs a new high school. Views differ on what type of space is needed and the location to carry out the future Educational Program. Everyone seems to agree that the current LHS is old, inefficient, and overcrowded. As part of the design process, the SBC analyzed a “code compliance” option including repair and alterations, but did not alter any space configurations toward meeting the Education Program. The estimated cost to bring the existing LHS just up to code is approximately $300 million. No matter what design emerges, Lexington will have to spend a lot. The fall of 2024 is crucial to advancing the LHS project and better understanding its cost. Lexington residents: your views are critical to shaping the project. Please participate!
Thank you for this article as it continues to help raise awareness to the general public.
As part of the team at LHS4ALL, we also agree that the high school needs to be improved.
Where we see opportunity is to reduce cost. What is required to deliver the Ed Plan? How much money truly needs to be spent on the building, as opposed to the teachers themselves?
Our architects are using a $1300 per square foot build cost estimate. (A new high end residential home sells for $450-$600 per square foot). $1300 is a huge number. When you look at the early design workshops, the ‘examples’ the architects shared features photos of schools with soaring walls of glass; mega high ceilings; expensive surfaces and materials, such as beams made of solid timbers and costing over $20M additional. These facilities are on par with corporate headquarters of billion dollar firms, not a publicly funded high school. They are beautiful- but is it necessary to add all this cost to a public high school? Do $20M timbers add to the Ed plan? Did anyone ask if there was a $900 per sf option to design the school? A $700 per sf option?
Lastly – the decision to incorporate the Central Office into LHS – a $25M decision – should be compared against the cost of leasing office space instead.
Unfortunately SMMA has more or less used the designs they had developed for Belmont, where there was a much larger available space to work with, and put them on our fields and pushed these plans forward (look at Belmont’s HS, same curved wings). It seems that no effort was made to develop an option that is a 100% new build only on land that encompasses the little league field, the football field, the practice field (farmers market) and the wooded knoll next to the current fieldhouse. They have put us in a situation where we either divide our fields completely, including a baseball field that is in excellent condition AND already has quality lighting (works great in the fall for overflow for soccer/ultimate when days are short) or we are forced to prolong construction and disruption by building in phases on the current foot print. Obviously a 100% new build will use some field space but using the baseball field is not necessary.
Trees on the knoll are not native and any wetland intrusion, which are not natural, can be recovered in other areas.
Last, Central Offices should not be at the HS. Central Office would require more parking and likely an expensive parking ramp. HS should be built with the minimum number of parking spaces possible.
This is not about school. I would like to ask if the town members are invitied to our manager’s retirement party in September. Also, when is the Open House for our brand new police station?
This is Mabel Amar asking a question about our future high school. It is reported that the future expected enrollment will be 2,395 but according to the enrollment for 2024 our enrollment is 2,302 so for an increase of 93 students we need a fancy expansive high school for about 600 millions? Our next door Belmont high school recently finished their brand new high school that included a middle school was built for 300 millions. I am always for educating our youth, the next and the next generation but having a fancy expansive high school in buildings would make them better students or out of touch students and they are the future citizens of the United States. I understand in many other countries they educate their students in crowded classrooms and their teachers teach and their students learn, e.g. in Japan. My dad grew up in Harobin, China never attended any school till he was 10 years old but he went on to the University of Peking and was elected student President then to University of Minnesota and in 5 years he received his Master degree and a Ph.D. in education from 1936-41 and in the old days he had to pass 5 foreign languages to receive his Ph.D in Education. I am just wondering if fancy expansive high school produces better, nice, considerate, kind, hard working but not out of touch high schoolers? I will vote for any school buildings now because anymore delays will cost us from 700 millions to a billion? Who can predict the future especially depending on the outcome of our Nov. 5 Presidential election. I hope our future fancy expansive high school would never be the taj mahal. In the 1985’s we did not have enough student enrollment and now the two schools are the condominiums.
Mabel
Even though there are 2300 students in the school today, it was not designed for that number and it is overcrowded. Particularly in the cafeteria. Expansion is needed. And renovations are needed.
How we approach these projects from a budgetary standpoint is important. It’s all the assumptions you make. If you assume that a school is going to cost $1300 a square foot to build, then it will cost that much.
However, If you assume that the school will cost 1100, or $900 a square foot, this is going to impose certain constraints on materials, on design. We did not make any critical budgetary decisions in the creation of the Proposed designs For LHS. So right now we are stuck with designs that are based on $1300 a square foot. And it’s my contention that it could’ve been designed for less than this.
Even if all you can save is $100 a square foot, that’s $50 million. Isnt that worth saving?