Lexington’s new high school could be the most expensive public school in the country based on Oct. 15 price estimates predicting the project will cost between $595 million and $764 million. The town is on track to beat out the $578 million Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools in Los Angeles, CA, which was last reported to be the costliest public school in the nation, the Associated Press reported

Dore + Whittier, the Owner’s Project Manager, estimated that nearly $150 million of Lexington’s price tag will be covered by state funding and federal rebates, leaving an estimated $461 million to be covered by taxpayers and town savings.

Neighboring towns such as Arlington and Belmont paid under $300 million for their recently constructed high schools, so why is Lexington’s project so much more expensive? 

Joe Pato, Lexington Select Board member and School Building Committee member, told LexObserver that “there is no budget.” Rather, the SBC has been conducting outreach to learn what school staff, residents, and the town want in a new school, in addition to discovering the potential costs of bringing the current school or newly-constructed building up to code, and developing price estimates accordingly.

The town has gone this route because it is working with the Massachusetts School Building Authority to plan and fund the project. As a result, the town must follow its guidelines. That includes having a SBC, a group of 15 residents, town and school staff, and designer and project manager representatives that collaborates with project managers and votes on project advancement, and developing cost estimates as they have. 

Asked if that practice is orthodox, Joel Gagne, CEO of Allerton Hill Communications, a communications consulting firm that works with school districts across the country, told LexObserver, “in high wealth communities, generally yes.”

Pato told LexObserver that the town followed those same MSBA guidelines when envisioning Estabrook Elementary School, which began its construction in 2013, and Hastings Elementary School ahead of its 2018 construction. Both of those projects were also done in collaboration with the authority. 

“This is also the standard process for other municipal projects,” Pato said. 

In exchange for adhering to the MSBA’s guidelines, Dore + Whittier estimated the authority will grant the town about $100 million to help fund the project, according to the OPM’s August presentation

In that presentation, the OPM estimated that the town will receive about $39 million in MassSave rebates, which will cover the cost of the school’s ground source heat pumps, solar panels, and related expenses. And, Lexington will have saved about $40 million in its Capital Stabilization Fund which will help chip away at the estimated bill. 

During the SBC’s Oct. 15 meeting, members decided they prefer two of the six massing studies, Bloom and Weave, both of which would be about 441,000 square feet. Bloom envisions constructing a new building on the property’s sports fields and Weave calls for reconstructing the current school in phases so it can remain in its existing footprint.

The construction of Bloom, alone, would cost about $598 million. It would cost about $621 million to construct the school with central offices inside, which would boost its square footage to about 460,000. Constructing the building with central offices inside and renovating the property’s field house — the SBC’s preferred way to update the current field house — would cost about $648 million.

The construction of Weave, alone, would cost about $670 million. It would cost about $694 million to construct the school with central offices inside, likewise boosting square footage. And, it would cost about $720 million to construct the school building with central offices, and renovate the field house.

In comparison, Arlington’s high school building project, on which construction began in 2020, cost about $291 million. Similarly, Belmont’s high school building project, on which construction began in 2019, cost about $295 million. 

Mike Burton, partner at Dore + Whittier, said it’s important to consider “when the projects were bid” — that is, when formal proposals are submitted to complete a project — during the OPM’s August presentation. When adjusted for inflation, the cost of Belmont and Arlington’s projects increased by a few hundred million dollars. 

“This gets all five high schools on the same page in terms of time,” Burton said during that presentation. “It’s apples to apples.”

Burton said enrollment and the size of the school are also important to consider when looking at price. While Lexington’s enrollment is hundreds more than those of Arlington or Belmont, the size of Lexington’s building likely won’t be much different from its neighbors. 

The scope of what the projects will include is also consequential when comparing costs, Burton said. Installing hundreds of wells for geothermal heat pumps is one item included in the scope of Lexington’s project that is not included in Arlington or Belmont’s. When adjusted for inflation, if Arlington or Belmont included geothermal heat pumps in their projects, they would be more costly. And, if their schools were the same square footage as Lexington’s imagined building, the price tags of their projects would likewise adjust. 

Pato told LexObserver that the estimated costs include many contingencies because the town is still in early stages of imagining the project. As the process continues, the estimated cost of the building project will become more refined. 

The next SBC meeting will be on Oct. 28 from 12 pm to 1 pm. The schedule of the SBC’s upcoming meetings is displayed on the project’s website. Recordings of past meetings can be found on LexMedia’s website.  

Join the Conversation

14 Comments

  1. I’m not sure why LexObserver chose to only show the comparative prices of just Belmont and Arlington, the two high school projects bid the longest ago of the four included in the OPM’s analysis. Please visit the LHS project website to see the full analysis and comparison to the more recent projects in Waltham and Revere (that when adjusted for inflation, enrollment, and scope are almost the same as the LHS project – or more in Revere’s case). The North Attleborough project currently in the MSBA pipeline a few months ahead of Lexington is also estimated at a similar cost per square foot.
    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11beh9n8OLYldpgpw2C_2pcTASMKnXx7G

    Finally, it’s been reported that Brockton High School, a year or two behind us in the MSBA process, may cost $1 Billion. Let’s not delay the Lexington project while costs continue to rise – please join me in support of the SBC’s carefully considered project.

    https://www.enterprisenews.com/story/news/education/2024/06/28/brockton-high-school-renovation-project-state-msba-approves-feasibility-study/74243833007/

    1. “the SBC’s carefully considered project” Really?!?

      The SBC is designing a new HS for 2,395 students when we ALREADY have 2,425 students at LHS today, in October 2024.

      And we have 960 new dwelling units planned in 7 projects on just 10.3% of the 227 acres open for new MBTA developments, just 18 months after Town Meeting approved MBTA zoning in April 2023.

      Remember that Avalon at Lexington Hills (the old Met State, off Concord Ave), with just 387 dwellings, generates 212 students in our schools (of which 51 at the HS). The “carefully considered” opinion of our then Selectmen, Planning Board, School Committee and Appropriation Committee at Town Meeting found the developer’s assertion that the development would generate 60 students credible. They were all wrong by a factor of 3.5 — just like the SBC may now be seriously wrong sizing a new HS for 2,395 students.

      Depending on how many MBTA developments eventually happen on the 227 acres (something NOBODY can predict today, since MBTA zoning is so new, and because 227 acres is a huge amount of land, 4 times more than the 50 acres State law required Lexington to allow MBTA zoning on), we may need a far larger HS than for 2,395 students, possibly for 3,400 or more students.

      Today’s SBC proposals mean we would spend two-thirds of a billion dollars on a building that will be too small the day it opens — correction, as it is designed.

      Is that really “carefully considered”? I don’t think so.

      1. Patrick – as you know the SBC has continued to work with the MSBA on enrollment and reimbursement of more square footage in the current designs based on increased enrollment. The 460K sq ft building designs can accommodate 3,000 students if needed. I think you are concerned about costs, and I can’t understand if/why you are advocating that Lexington build a bigger building – which will cost more. Potentially a billion dollars if we go bigger and wait longer, as is being considered for Brockton High School. There are only three high schools in Massachusetts with more than 3,000 students: Brockton, Lowell, and Lawrence high schools. Their campuses are 565K – 625K sq ft, a size that probably doesn’t fit very well on the site that the LHS project is proposed for. As our school administration has said, if enrollment at LHS increases beyond this, we won’t be trying to build a bigger high school here – instead we will be looking into alternative solutions to address capacity district-wide. The SBC project is very carefully considered, and I believe they are pursuing the most cost-effective, educationally appropriate solution for this building project.

        What you are commenting on above as not being “carefully considered” is Lexington’s MBTA zoning changes. I do absolutely agree with you about the uncertainty of the impacts of the MBTA zoning changes, and agree that the Select Board, Planning Board and staff, and others need to conduct and present more analysis of the impacts to the entire town. As the town gathers more data on proposed and completed developments, I’m hopeful that Lexington may be able to refine and update the zoning changes we made to reduce the possibility of building more units than town infrastructure can handle. I urge people to join me in support of the SBC’s high school project – that will cost less than any larger, longer project Patrick is promoting – and if you have concerns about the MBTA developments and how increasing population affects the whole town, reach out to Town leadership about their plans to address this.

  2. Part of the proposal includes a renovation to the current Field House used by hundreds of students across multiple sports, which does not meet the needs of current students nor students who will be part of LHS in the next 50 years. The Boosters of Lexington Track & Cross Country (BOLT-XC) have assembled some information on the costs and alternatives of a new field house. Below are links to 3 resources.

    1) A YouTube video discussing the costs of a field house renovation vs. replacement:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1IsAh2pkI

    2) A position statement and FAQ by BOLT-XC to educate (Links to a Google Drive PDF):
    https://tinyurl.com/24fzmsps

    3) A petition you can sign that will let the School Building Committee that you believe a new Field House is the preferred path and should be discussed further (Links to a Google Form):
    https://tinyurl.com/yhaxrsjy

    1. Can you explain if to pay for a brand new and larger field house, the organizers recommend renting it out to sports clubs and other organizations on weekends, evening and vacations? As an abbutter I STRONGLY oppose this idea and it will be very unfair for neighbors to bare that traffic, congestion and noise just to make the field house affordable for everyone else.

  3. When are we going to address the use of Lexington addresses to enroll non-family and unrelated students, motivated to bilk the system?

Leave a comment
All commenters must be registered and logged in with a verified email address. To register for an account visit the registration page for our site. If you already have an account, you can login here or by clicking "My Account" on the upper right hand corner of any page on the site, right above the search icon.

Commenters must use their real first and last name and a real email address.
We do not allow profanity, racism, or misinformation.
We expect civility and good-faith engagement.

We cannot always fact check every comment, verify every name, or debate the finer points of what constitutes civility. We reserve the right to remove any comment we deem inappropriate, and we ask for your patience and understanding if something slips through that may violate our terms.

We are open to a wide range of opinions and perspectives. Criticism and debate are fundamental to community – but so is respect and honesty. Thank you.