To keep readers and residents informed, the Lexington Observer will continue to provide summaries and commentary on the progress of the new Lexington High School (LHS), leading up to the planned Debt Exclusion Vote in late 2025.
The School Building Committee (SBC) submitted the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) for the “Bloom” option to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for approval in December 2024. The new year began with initial meetings between the SBC and the Permanent Building Committee (PBC) to kick off schematic design. SMMA, the Town’s architect, will follow a structured cadence to lead the Town to make many design decisions. At its January 9th meeting, the PBC began by reviewing and pushing back on SMMA’s work plan for schematic design. Members emphasized that the PBC, as well as other Town committees, need a role and involvement in making design decisions. At its January 13 meeting, the SBC immediately dove into Bloom design issues including: the feasibility of alleviating current overcrowding at LHS by accelerating the construction and occupancy of a wing of the Bloom scheme; issues surrounding the addition and renovation of the field house; and the pros and cons of using mass timber (a building material with lower embedded carbon) as well as structural steel.
The initial design meetings quickly highlight important issues for Lexington:
- Schedule tension: Lexington is “on the clock” to meet the MSBA’s timeline. There are many decisions to be discussed and confirmed. SMMA’s detailed project plan is expansive. Schematic design (see slide below) needs to be completed by early June so that estimators can produce the next cost estimate. The design package needs to be wrapped up in August to submit to the MSBA. SMMA, Dore & Whittier (Lexington’s project manager), and the Department of Public Facilities are keenly aware of the schedule constraints. The schedule makes extensive involvement by others complicated.
- Decision-making tension: The new LHS must fit with the educational program prepared by the Town and approved by the MSBA. Reimbursement is at stake. The meeting discussions clearly showed the tension between educational and varied non-educational interests, from those who want a say in the detailed design, to others who want more community benefits, and finally to those concerned about real estate tax increases.
- Cost issues: The high anticipated cost of the new LHS is on the minds of all involved in the decision-making. Lexington will have a better idea of the project cost as the design is developed and refined. The PSR estimates the project cost at $662 million for the ‘Bloom’ concept, or approximately $500 million after MSBA reimbursement and other rebates. This estimate is based on historic costs from other projects escalated to LHS proposed schedule. Schematic design will include discussion of cost options to help make decisions (e.g., mass timber costs more than structural steel). Decisions on each design element will be rolled up and handed off to two estimators who will then produce cost estimates based on the schematic design. The estimates will be reviewed, reconciled, and then “value engineered”. There will be no top-down budget based on an analysis of what taxpayers can afford, which has led to concerns among some stakeholders. The next estimate will apply market construction prices to the detailed choices made during schematic design to implement the educational program.
Construction of the Bloom option requires Article 97 legislation and the relocation of some athletic fields, including the football field. 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.
At its January 13 meeting, the Select Board began addressing the Article 97 process with a working session with Town counsel. Towns must analyze and present alternatives to changing the use of Article 97 lands. Towns must demonstrate support for Article 97 legislation. Article 97 legislation occurs frequently in Massachusetts: Lexington anticipated this requirement with the new LHS. However, there may be challenges.
The public can stay informed and get involved, especially members of Town appointed committees that may have a seat at the table. The SBC website provides comprehensive information, including calendars, presentation materials, meeting minutes, recordings of both SBC and PBC meetings, and FAQs. Expect continued public forums, focus groups in key design areas, meetings with nearby property owners (abutters), and discussion sessions with the consultant team and various Town committees.
The next public forum will be held on February 6 starting at 6 pm at Cary Hall.
“In order to convert Article 97 lands to a different use . . . 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.”
Thank you for this informative article, Gerry. How about the Select Board? What is the required vote there?
Lexington residents should know that Article 97 land swaps are fairly common in Massachusetts. Twenty two Article 97 land swaps were approved in 2023 alone — three of them were for school projects.
You can view the complete list under the heading “23-24 Session – Passed Article 97 Bills” on the state’s page on Article 97
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/article-97-an-act-preserving-open-space-in-the-commonwealth-mgl-c-3-ss-5a
Though as Meg Muckenhoupt states, Art. 97 swaps are fairly common, they are not automatic. I would hope that our town and state legislators will consider the substantial opposition by many citizens (not just abutters) to Bloom’s location in the fields. And since no serious study was made by SBC of the option suggested in the 2015 Master Plan for staged design starting with building in place of the Foreign Lang. Bldg., it is hard to make an argument that no alternative exists to building in the fields – the first requirement for the swap to be allowed. I continue to be baffled by SBC’s assumption that they’ll get the Art. 97 protection of the fields lifted. Blaming those of us who oppose the land swap to, among other reasons, stop substantial environmental changes (for which proposed mitigation may or may no work) is misdirection from SBC’s failure to ensure that the land they need will be available prior to spending a penny on designing a school in the fields. Continuing to spend taxpayer dollars on designing Bloom before the land is granted to them is risking the waste of additional approximately $10 million on a project which may not have the land on which to build. Why do the architects not develop ASAP a detailed design and estimate for Stage 1 building as suggested in 2015, to see that an alternative to building in the fields exists? And while they are at it, have them design to a budget. The staged approach will get Stage 1 completed at least a year earlier than Bloom (relieving LHS overcrowding sooner), at a lower cost, and when the entire LHS is completed (in 2033/34) it will be the right size school at a cost more residents can afford. I see a way to retain the current commitment of the MSBA funding even with a 2-stage design while waiting for them to adapt their rules for supporting an “enrollment unpredictability” scenario brought to Lexington by the MBTA multi-family rezoning state mandate. Happy to share my plan with anyone who wants to hear the details. If you agree that the fields should not be touched, please communicate this to members of the Select Board, and please vote on March 3rd for candidates who want a renewed high school off the fields, for less money and to be the right size.