Where is the new Lexington High School going in 2025?

LexObserver Columnist Gerry Yurkevicz will be providing regular updates and analysis related to the Lexington High School building project.

Are you looking forward to seeing what happens with the proposed new Lexington High School in the year ahead? 2025 is the crucial year. The hope is that residents coalesce around a joint vision for a building that everyone agrees we need. The fear is that there will be a non-productive debate leading up to the debt exclusion Vote late in 2025. Here are some highlights on what to expect. 

Recent Decisions and the Path Forward

“Congratulations to everyone for all of our hard work. This is big for us and our students, both with our meeting (approving the “Bloom” design) and Town Meeting (rejecting a Citizen Petition to delay the decision). It is pretty exciting to be going forward,” said Kathleen Lenihan, School Building Committee (SBC) Chair, at a recent SBC meeting. 

Source: SBC website

At its November 12 meeting, the SBC selected massing study C.5b, or Bloom, as their preferred design. The SBC will submit this design to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) as part of what’s known as the Preferred Schematic Report. The estimated project cost of the Bloom design is now $662 million: $522 million after expected reimbursement, grants and rebates. This estimate encompasses the school, a renovation and addition to the field house, and the inclusion of the Central Administration Offices. 

At Town Meeting on November 13, a Citizen Petition inserted by Peter Kelley and other residents seeking support to delay the Bloom submission to the MSBA resoundingly failed, with only 11 members voting in favor and 157 against, with 8 abstentions. There was strong opposition to this petition: speakers from the SBC, School Committee, Superintendent’s Office, Select Board, Capital Expenditure Committee, Appropriations Committee, and Town Meeting members voiced their opposition. After Town Meeting, Peter Kelley said “I expected as much, but the goal was to try to start a broader back-and-forth dialogue within the community on the consequences of Bloom.” 

As for next steps, in December, Dore and Whittier, Lexington’s project manager, will submit the Preferred Schematic Report with the Bloom option on behalf of the town and SMMA, the town’s designer. Approval by the MSBA Board of Directors is required to proceed into schematic design. Lexington should appear before the Board for its Preferred Schematic Design authorization at a February 2025 Board meeting.

After authorization, Lexington will develop a robust schematic design of sufficient detail to establish the scope, budget and schedule for LHS. The MSBA then will generate an agreement that documents MSBA’s financial participation to forward to the MSBA Board of Directors for their consideration and approval. 

A huge amount of work needs to be completed. By the end of May, SMMA’s preliminary task list covers 16 major areas (e.g., building design; safety features) involving 81 design decisions (e.g., exterior design; entry sequence and access control). The key milestone is in late August when Lexington will submit the schematic design with a revised cost estimate to the MSBA for its approval. 

Source: SBC website; preliminary Schematic Design work plan from SMMA

Expect multiple layers of involvement and oversight as the project moves forward. The SBC will continue to oversee the project. The Permanent Building Committee (PBC) will become more involved, especially as the technical details are better developed. The PBC provides general supervision over the design and construction of public structures, recreational facilities and buildings. The town’s Public Facilities Department is critical to all building projects. At its December 9 meeting, the SBC voted to proceed with Turner as the Construction Manager (CM) for the project. Choosing a CM now to participate in schematic design efforts with pre-construction services may provide another layer of design and cost discipline. 

Various boards, committees, and town staff will scrutinize updated cost estimates for Bloom, looking for opportunities to reduce costs and to “value engineer” the project, as has been done with past capital projects. As the preliminary cost estimates have shown, the town will be constructing LHS in a high cost, post-inflation environment. 

What path can we expect for costs going forward? The Preferred Schematic Report includes language that “all parties will work together to refine the total project budget with the goal of maintaining and preferably reducing the costs.” The experience with the new Arlington High School may provide a glimpse into the future. As part of its Schematic Design, Arlington reduced total project cost by about 6% from preliminary estimates. To adhere to the project budget, Arlington had to reduce costs further though value engineering, design modifications, and scope changes by another 10%. 

A hypothetical 16% reduction for Bloom would result in a significant cost reduction in Lexington. How likely can Lexington surface cost reduction opportunities? Dore and Whittier calculated a $1,115 cost per square foot across benchmarked new high schools (i.e., Arlington, Belmont, Revere, and Waltham) adjusted for scope and inflation. Lexington’s Schematic Design Report suggests that the estimated cost for Bloom is about $1,300 per square foot, or about 17% above the average of comparable new schools. It is very common for management teams to establish a goal of being at or below average for capital or operating costs. However, cost reduction caution is often needed: higher upfront costs can be justified if a strong case can be made that total costs over the life of LHS will be lower. 

Of course, the biggest “bang for the buck” would be to increase the reimbursement that Lexington hopes to receive from the MSBA. Current planning assumptions assume that Lexington will receive $100 million from the MSBA.  

Pulse of the Town: Most Everyone Wants a New LHS But Differences Persist

The Lexington Observer’s staff has met few residents that believe that Lexington does not need a new high school to replace the current hot, stuffy, and overcrowded facility. 

A supporters’ group, Yes for Lexington, has formed and currently lists over 330 supporters. The group supports the passage of a debt exclusion to fund the new school. Expect Yes for Lexington to mount broad outreach efforts in support of Bloom within the community to various stakeholder groups during 2025. 

LHS4ALL , listing over 75 supporters, is a campaign by another group of residents to build a new high school “at the right price, right size, and right place.” The group backed the Citizen Petition for delay and has highlighted concerns about building on the recreation fields and uncertain high school enrollment projections as a result of the new housing going up around town in compliance with the MBTA Communities Act. LHS4ALL has advocated a phased approach for a new school and is holding ongoing community forums. 

89% of Town Meeting voted against the Citizen Petition to delay LHS at the recent Town Meeting, suggesting strong support to move forward.

Regulatory and Legislative Matters

It will not be all smooth sailing. Construction of the Bloom option requires Article 97 land disposition — Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution protects all publicly owned lands used for conservation or recreation purposes. Bloom will be built on some recreation fields that are Article 97 lands. In order to convert Article 97 lands to a different use, such as the new LHS, action will be required by a 2/3 vote of Town Meeting as well as a roll-call 2/3 vote of the State House and Senate. The town will most likely propose a land swap, allowable under the State Constitution, to replace the Article 97 lands impacted by Bloom with equal amounts of Article 97 recreation land once the project is completed. 

Article 97 legislation happens frequently. In the 2024 session, the Legislature passed 22 Acts addressing Article 97 issues, including 3 involving schools. This is likely a lengthy political process and the Town has started outreach to its elected officials in the House and Senate. 

Community Engagement Perspectives

The largest capital project in the history of Lexington is a big deal. In getting to this point, over the last two and a half years there have been hundreds of public meetings, subcommittee meetings, focus groups, visioning sessions, and community-wide forums to develop and assess project siting and design options to meet Lexington’s educational needs. The SBC website contains a huge amount of information. However, many of these sessions were conducted before post-COVID cost estimates were developed in mid-2024 as well as before disclosure that construction might occur on the existing recreation fields.

In spite of the abundance of meetings and information, there is some dissatisfaction in the community on how the public can participate going forward in the LHS debate, especially those who have concerns about scope, location, cost, and affordability. 

Lana Panasyuk, a LHS4ALL supporter, posted on The Lexington List that “the [SBC] does not have a way for citizens to have a dialog or a debate. I’ve done “public speak.” You just express your thoughts and nothing comes back. No discussion, not even answering questions. Like speaking into a void.” 

Some changes have been made in response to public comment: an addition/renovation option using the existing site was added for consideration; the Bloom design was rotated to lessen the impact on the existing recreation fields.

The PBC had an helpful session with materials in September, discussing all LHS options, including from citizens that proposed alternatives. SMMA’s preliminary Schematic Design work plan suggests weekly design workshops. The public engagement concerning the solar canopies at the new police station might provide another model to consider. Based on community concerns discovered late in the design process (similar to the location and cost situation now with LHS), town staff and stakeholders worked collaboratively to surface issues and develop alternatives.

SBC Members Kathleen Lenihan and Joe Pato both acknowledge the engagement concerns, and are “discussing making a plan for better public engagement” for 2025.  

The Affordability Question

Project cost estimates included in the Schematic Design Report suggest a tax increase for an average Lexington house valued at $1,416,00 would be $2,150 annually, or about 12%. The town has plans to try to mitigate this impact the best it can, including paying some of the new debt through the operating budget and applying capital fund reserves.  

Residents have raised affordability concerns at many LHS community meetings. Sarela Bilman-Cohan, a LHS4ALL supporter, again echoed this sentiment at the recent Town Meeting, stating, “Many middle class and fixed income retirees who bought their houses when it was still affordable will not be able to afford the increase in taxes. By forcing the middle class out of town, we will forever change the demographics of Lexington. A member of the SBC would like to see a beautiful school and mentioned that home values will increase. But what good does it do if you can’t afford to live in your home?.”

Lexington residents have limited opportunities to lessen the tax impact. The town has a number of programs for elderly and other tax relief. However, restrictions, limits, qualifications, and conditions tend to reduce or eliminate the benefits for many.

The March Towards the Debt Exclusion Vote

A 2/3 vote of the Select Board (4 out of 5 members in Lexington’s case) is needed to place the LHS exclusion question on the ballot, and a majority of Lexington voters must vote in favor in order for the debt exclusion to pass. If the debt exclusion passes, Town Meeting will be asked to vote to fund the fully designed and priced LHS project, most likely in the 4th quarter of next year.  

Does the past give us any hint that the LHS debt exclusion vote might be successful? The bar chart below plots the “Yes” vote percentage for each of the last 11 votes in Lexington. The dollar amounts associated with each vote are shown by the line.

• Lexington has had 11 debt exclusion votes since 1997, with more than one question appearing in some years on the ballot.
• Debt exclusion passed for 10 of the 11 questions: the only vote to fail was for LHS renovations in 1997 when only 45% voted “Yes”; a reworked exclusion vote for LHS reducing the amount by over 20% passed the next year.
• The average as well as the median “Yes” vote was about 60%. 
• None of these votes were for exclusion amounts above $75 million, which makes the upcoming LHS vote truly unique for its size. 

Source: Town of Lexington, MA Department of Revenue, Lexington Observer analysis

The “Yes” vote for the new Arlington High School totaled 77%; the “Yes” vote for the new Belmont High School was 76%. 

How big might the “No” vote be in Lexington this time? Sources among town officials believe that there is a core segment of residents who would prefer limits to municipal spending in general. The belief is that this segment consistently represents about 20% of voters. “Yes for Lexington” currently lists over 330 supporters while “LHS4All” lists over 75. The largest “No” vote for a recent debt exclusion vote was 55% in 1997, with a low of 27%.

A “No” vote does not mean that the project stands still. In 1997, the “No” vote resulted in a reworked package that passed in 1998. Taylor Singh, Campaign Chair for Yes for Lexington, cautioned saying “what is important for Lexington voters to know is that if they vote against this project next year, that does not mean we will not have to pay for a new high school. The current LHS is extremely overcrowded, and needs significant upgrades. Supporting the project will give our students the modern facilities they deserve.” Look for continuing activity, dialogue, debate, and decisions on the new LHS in 2025, and let’s hope it is all productive and civil.