LHS Update: Moving forward with Bloom

Columnist Gerry Yurkevicz writes summaries and analysis about the plans for the new Lexington High School building.

Spring is here: the Town-approved “Bloom” design for the new Lexington High School is quickly taking shape. The next Community Forum is scheduled for Wednesday, March 19 beginning at 6:30 pm at Cary Memorial. 

The approval in February by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) of the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) submission enables Lexington to officially move forward. Since the beginning of the year, Lexington, led by the School Building Committee (SBC) and the Permanent Building Committee (PBC), plus a host of other Town Departments and Committees, have been off and running to make design decisions. It is a daunting task to confirm building design elements to submit to cost estimators by June to include in the next submission to the MSBA for its approval in August. Town Meeting will then weigh in on the project. An up or down Debt Exclusion vote could then occur in December.    

Community support for the Bloom design appears strong, as shown by public attendance at forums and recent election results. The most recent Community Forum, on February 6, attracted over 150 participants and discussion was generally supportive of the Bloom project. Voters on March 3 chose Vineeta Kumar and re-elected Joe Pato to the Select Board. Both are supporters of Yes for Lexington. 

The Bloom design is informed by the Educational Plan for Lexington High School, which was developed and approved by the Town in keeping with the MSBA’s design guidelines. At the February meeting, SBC Member and PBC Co-Chair Jon Himmel suggested that it is critical for the SBC to continue to communicate this message, adding, “what is important is that there is an Educational Plan and there are design schemes, including Bloom. Some Lexington residents may think we short-circuited the process and now have Bloom. However, Bloom is anchored in the educational plan.” In announcing that the MSBA Board voted to move Lexington into the Schematic Design (SD) phase, State Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, Chair of the MSBA, said, “we are working to build a 21st century educational facility that will provide Lexington students with a top-notch learning environment.” The descriptions of Bloom from SMMA, Lexington’s designer, at the February Community Forum echo the goals of the Educational Plan, emphasizing design concepts such as “adjacencies,” “connectivity,” “communities within,” “interdisciplinary,” and “human respite and quiet spaces.” 

In its submission, the Town estimated the total cost for the 509,516 square foot (sf) Bloom project at $662 million, including escalation, or almost $1,300 per sf. After MSBA expected reimbursement and other grants/rebates, the plan concludes that the Town’s anticipated costs would be about $550 million. In its recommendation to the MSBA Board to approve Lexington moving forward, the MSBA’s staff concluded that the preferred Bloom option is “reasonable and cost effective and meets the needs identified by the District.”

As many stakeholders have pointed out, Lexington cannot continue to ignore a crowded high school with a deficient infrastructure that does not support the approved educational program. The Town estimates that just upgrading the existing high school to code would cost $311 million.

Residents should not expect significant downward cost reductions as Lexington moves forward. Boston-area union labor contracts now reflect Covid-era inflation. Trump’s tariffs may impact commodity and materials costs. Big changes to Bloom will be difficult to implement. “We can’t just pick up another design scheme; the MSBA may ask us to go all the way back to the beginning,” added Kathleen Lenihan, SBC co-chair and School Board Member at the February SBC meeting.

Lexington’s team will also “value engineer” the project as required by the MSBA to find cost savings opportunities. However, as Mike Burton of Dore & Whittier (Lexington’s Project Manager) stated at the February Community Forum, “what we do in value engineering is not try to take away from things that we want but find smarter ways, better products, and more cost-effective things that we can put into that building. We do not want to impact the school program.” As stated in the approved submission, “the Town and taxpayers expect that the final project cost to align with this estimate and it can be viewed as an upper limit.”

The high cost of school construction represents a nationwide challenge. In Massachusetts, Lexington is not the only community facing cost pressure. Dedham is charting a path forward as voters in February 2025 rejected a debt exclusion ballot question by a 53% to 47% margin for an elementary school projected to cost over $1,200/sf. Elsewhere, Portland, Oregon, another forward-looking community, is trying to pare back the size and scope of future high schools: a $1.8 billion bond vote in May 2025 is at stake.

Taxes will increase as a result. Lexington now estimates that the tax increase for its share of the project cost would be about $2,150 annually (about 13%) for an average Lexington household valued at $1,416,000. The Town believes that this figure could fall to $1,600 annually (about 9%) using two planned mitigation strategies: (1) paying some of LHS annual debt service within the operating budget and (2) applying monies in the Capital Stabilization Reserve to pay down the debt. There are many scenarios for a future path that the Town could follow to mitigate the property tax bill. At the February Community Forum, the Town presented a scenario to “smooth” the tax increase over time. For the median house value, the analysis showed that the tax increase attributable to LHS construction net of mitigation measures from 2028 to 2038 could be $13,906 ($1,264 annually), about a 6% increase over the tax bill expected for that period.      

The SBC is ultimately responsible for approving all the design elements that will be handed over to generate a new cost estimate in June 2025. The Town is now in the weeds of the design effort needing to confirm direction across 15 major design categories (e.g., Building Design, Safety & Security) encompassing over 85 elements (e.g., Field House, Future Expansion Square Footage).  

Design discussions include consideration of the educational plan, student and staff, community, project and life-cycle cost, and community issues. As Lexington goes forward, the Lexington Observer will provide readers with a snapshot of the Project Team’s major decisions and how it is balancing education, community, and cost considerations. Since the beginning of the year, the SBC has made the following decisions: 

•  Renovation/addition to the field house: The MSBA will not participate in paying for a field house but will allow Lexington to include a renovation/addition in the overall project. After months of debate, the SBC has chosen to proceed with a 48,000 sf option including a 146 meter/3 lane track at a cost of $42.6 million. Other options considered included a $26.6 million renovation as well as more expansive projects (including moving to a flat roof) costing at the high end about $57.2 million.    
• Use of structural steel rather than mass timber: LHS will use only structural steel at a cost of $26.8 million. The SBC was presented with options to use mass timber, which provides climate and environmental benefits but would add between $2 to $24 million. No SBC member was in favor of using mass timber: the sentiment was that the additional dollars would be better spent elsewhere.   
•  Gym assembly capacity: the design will include 1,000 seats for the gym. 
• “Apples-to-apples” square foot per student: Bloom’s size is reasonable. Requirements for square foot per student are included in Massachusetts’ regulations. No school is the same: districts can make choices based on their unique needs (e.g., the new Waltham High includes almost 100K sf for career and technical education shop space). Lexington’s unique features include the field house, space for the Central Office, space for 100 LABB students, and a larger auditorium. Adjusting for these features, Lexington is planning for 182 sf per student (the current LHS is only 132 sf per student, over 25 percent smaller). After adjustments, Lexington falls in the range of comparable new high schools, with a low of 181 sf per student for Arlington and a high of 200 sf per student for Winchester.          

The cost of LHS is clearly important to Lexington residents. As the SBC confirms its design choices during the schematic design phase, the Lexington Observer hopes to update the chart below. For choices that the SBC makes, the chart shows the cumulative estimated costs, where available, for the (1) least costly option, (2) highest cost option, and (3) option the SBC chose. The SBC is very early in its “confirmation” process: choices to date for the field house and mass timber fall in the middle between low and high-cost options.

A lot of work still needs to be completed in 2025 leading up to a potential Debt Exclusion vote. Residents should remain mindful of the regulatory and legislative matters that must proceed concurrently with the design effort. The proposed Bloom site is subject to Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which protects conservation and recreational land. Lexington is working to meet Article 97 requirements for a land swap. Converting Article 97 lands to a different use, such as building a new high school, requires a 2/3 vote of Town Meeting, as well as a roll-call 2/3 vote of each chamber of the State Legislature. MSBA approval to move forward “will be contingent upon the District satisfying all MSBA land ownership and control requirements, and any environmental approvals for the proposed site.” Other towns have successfully navigated these issues but hiccups or challenges with these matters would only add cost and time to the Lexington project.  

There is still a long journey ahead for Lexington until the first shovel hits the ground.