I have attended every meeting of the School Building Committee for a year, starting before the project designer SMMA was hired last October. An outcome of the September 3 meeting was so shocking to me that I feel I must describe more than that event but also the unaddressed concerns of the committee.
I have been convinced for some time that none of the plans before the committee will be acceptable to the Select Board or to the town. The concerns of committee members—that the project will fail, that the best design for a school has yet to be found, and that the uncertainty of enrollment projections due to the MBTA Communities Act must be accounted for—have been ignored. The overriding goal driving the committee over the next few weeks is to select a final plan by the artificial deadline of November 12. That, unfortunately, all but guarantees that the deadline will be missed, and in a way that threatens the project itself.
I will explain why I believe the Select Board and the town cannot and will not accept any of the six current plans the building committee is considering. There are several reasons and cost is not the driving factor in any of them. Most of what I will say is already known to the committee.
Then I will suggest a fix that is also already known to the committee and architects. Indeed, it builds on a suggestion of the architects that has not been discussed, given the committee’s determination to get to the next phase of the project.
In essence the idea is to complete one phase of a project for a brand new school that will sit on the site of the current school by the fall of 2029. It will completely relieve overcrowding and meet most of the school’s education plan with no impact on students’ experience during construction. Future phases will take place on an as yet to be determined schedule as the town is able to predict the size school that is needed, and in such a way that students continue to receive the education this town is noted for without disruption.
If the School Building Committee, parents, and all citizens of Lexington will pause, take a deep breath, and consider how important it is to keep this project on track, we can have a brand new school that will meet everyone’s objectives.
My complete remarks can be found here.
Jim’s analysis of the high school building project highlights the significant financial burden it would place on our community and offers a more affordable alternative. I urge everyone to read his six-page recommendation in full.
I have been torn about supporting the project as it currently stands. While the high school building is indeed overcrowded and underperforming, and I fully support improvements, the proposed property tax increase is just too steep. Financing a $630 to $700 million building would require a 10% to 14% property tax hike, adding thousands of dollars to household property tax bills annually.
Whether one views the project’s costs as reasonable or gold-plated, a tax increase of this magnitude will significantly change the character of our town. It will make our community less affordable and potentially drive out many middle-income families and seniors.
Our elected leaders must consider alternatives that garner broad support and preserve our town’s diversity. We need a solution that balances our educational needs with fiscal responsibility. I applaud Jim for proposing such a viable solution.
(Copy of a response I wrote to this on the Lexington email list)
I have been tossing and turning at night thinking about this.
I realized that what is really sticking with me is how the ugly rhetoric and divisiveness of national politics seems to be coming home to roost, and I don’t like it.
I think that everyone involved is doing their best.
There are differences of opinion as to what “best” is based on each person’s lived experience and current status.
There are different priorities, and they are challenging to balance.
Educational priorities defined by stakeholders (administrators, staff, students, parents, community members)
Finances
Recreational options (fields)
Environmental protection
Community use
Educational use
Sustainability
And probably more things that I’m not thinking about
I think it’s important to recognize that just because someone’s priorities are different from yours does not make them a bad person, or that they have nefarious intent.
I think it’s important to speak in fact as much as possible, and avoid hyperbole, overstatement, and personal attacks. I think it’s important to be transparent about what our priorities are as we discuss this, and recognize that every approach has pros and cons.
I think that the vast majority of people in this town recognize that the high school needs work/replacement. The more we can educate ourselves and everyone now, participate in the design process and share our opinions (recognizing that there are competing opinions and ours may not end up being the majority consensus), the better.
To that end, there is a community forum tomorrow night, Weds 9/18 from 6:30-8:30 in the Cary Memorial Building (town hall, not the library).
(and a few more coming up after that).
(Copy of email to Lexington list)
I have a number of comments on the document. The overriding one is that you are stating a number of your opinions as fact. I will address these issues point by point.
* You are convinced that none of the plans will be acceptable to the select board or the town. Opinion. Mine differs.
* The concerns of committee members have been ignored. Opinion. I have discussed some of the issues with members of the SBC myself.
– Best project design has not been found – is that not what the current process, with multiple public forums, is working on?
– The “project will fail” – my interpretation is that there MUST be planning in case of the debt override failing AND there needs to be accurate information to share with the public about the concerns if that happens.
– Uncertainty in enrollment projection – that is *always* going to be an uncertainty, and plans ARE being discussed.
* Your “complete phase 1 now and the rest at some undetermined time” will meet everyone’s objectives. Opinion. And also, false, as this plan will meet very few of the educational objectives, fix few of the current longstanding issues with the building, and end up costing well more due to inflation.
* “None of the six plans on the table are acceptable.” Opinion.
* Your particular interest is in retaining all the fields as is. Thank you for being transparent about this opinion.
* The three phased plans cannot be supported by anyone. Opinion. (I happen to agree that *I* do not support them, but it seems unreasonable to claim you know everyone’s opinion).
* Half the designs were eliminated in a manner that severely undermines public faith. Opinion. (I see the whole process as evolving with different pieces of the project being worked on at different times – it would have been good if the challenges for the renovation/addition project had been determined earlier in the process, but that earlier discovery would not alter the facts of the challenges of that construction.)
* Plans for a “turnkey” school will not survive either. Opinion.
* Plans for a school building on the fields are unacceptable. Opinion.
* None of the designs is likely to pass Article 97 or MEPA review. Opinion, and likely false.
* Adjacent recreation land is already spoken for by its owners, the residents of lexington. This statement doesn’t even make sense to me – spoken for how?
* You move into highly speculative text about wetlands and all the ways in which the new building plans could be challenged. Opinion.
* Select board member Suzie Barry will vote against this plan. It surprises me that she would have made such a public statement about plans to vote, but regardless she is not running for re-election and therefore will not be on the board when the plans are brought forward.
* A plan that “takes the fields” (an incorrect statement in and of itself as all fields will be replaced) will face protracted opposition. Opinion, but I suppose you could choose to make it true, or, if it becomes clear that you are in fact in the minority, perhaps you might make a different choice?
* Uncertainty about enrollment – fact 🙂