Lexington’s new high school could cost about $659.7 million according to a new cost estimate presented to the town’s Permanent Building Committee on Thursday night. After reimbursements, taxpayers will cover about $539.7 million of that price tag.
That’s down about $2.4 million from the project cost the School Building Committee chose to move forward with in December, of about $662 million.
The cost estimate, which was created by Turner Construction, the construction manager at risk on the project, noted that about $120 million could be covered by state programs, including about $110 million in reimbursements from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, which agreed to work with the town to cover some of the project’s costs. That’s $10 million more than what the fall’s cost estimate predicted.
The updated estimate assumes the MSBA will include the high school’s LABBB space in its square footage, which is unclear.
Dore + Whittier, the owner’s project manager on the project, is working on a school in another town that’s also part of the LABBB program, Mike Burton, who is partner at Dore + Whittier said during the meeting. The MSBA did include their LABBB space when devising how much of a reimbursement to grant, he noted.
If Lexington’s LABBB space is likewise considered in the school’s square footage by the MSBA, the town could get another $1 million from the state program, the estimate reflects.
Turner’s estimate also shows the town could get about $10 million from MassSave, which offers rebates and incentives for capital projects aimed at improving energy efficiency. The building project qualifies for that funding because it could include several green technologies, including solar canopies and ground-source heat pumps.
The prior cost estimate noted the town could save about $50 million for those climate-friendly features due to reimbursements from former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA. Lexington resident Patrick Mehr asked the presenters where that $50 million went because it was not reflected in the presentation.
“We got a new president and there have been some changes in the IRA and it does not look like that will be available for this project,” Burton said.
Presenters also shared how Trump’s tariffs could affect the cost of the project.
The cost could increase between one and three percent based on how tariffs look today, Jamie Meiser from Turner Construction, said. That estimate assumes there would be tariffs of between 10 and 30 percent on materials such as steel, aluminum, mechanical equipment, and electrical equipment, among other necessities required for the project.
The tariffs could change at any point, though, because Trump has changed his mind about how much he wants to tax imports on several occasions throughout his second term.
The cost estimate includes about $124.3 million in contingencies, which is a predetermined sum of money set aside at the beginning of a project to cover unforeseen costs. That includes a design contingency of about $38.4 million.
“By May of 2027 [that $38.4 million] will be zero,” said Burton. “It will get smaller as we progress.”
A few residents who have repeatedly shared their opposition to Bloom, which is the name of the design of Lexington’s new high school, voiced their disapproval of the project and its timeline at the meeting.
“We are forcing the community to speak to this project…with no alternative being considered,” Peter Kelley, a Lexington resident, noted. The School Building Committee considered several designs before landing on Bloom, which its members and residents prefer.
“I find it bad politics to have the most important meetings [this meeting and the Environmental Policy & Justice Community Meeting, which was also yesterday] of the whole project in the summer when almost no citizens are around,” Olga Guttag, a Lexington resident, shared.
A handful of residents attended the meeting, which was held at the police station, in-person. Most joined over Zoom. Also in the room were a quorum from the Select Board, School Committee, School Building Committee, Capital Expenditure Committee, and Appropriation Committee.
There will be many more meetings and cost estimates to come as the project progresses. Burton said the town can expect updated cost estimates around: March 26, August 26 of next year, and January 27 of 2027.
Betsy Weiss, a Town Meeting member who represents Precinct 2, thanked the presenters and committee members who were at the meeting for their hard work and shared her approval of the plan.
“We need a high school, this school has the right design, I just want to thank you for your effort, I’m sorry we lost the IRA funds but that’s because of our president…thank you and you’ve done a great job,” she said to close the meeting.
Correction: A previous version of this article stated the project was estimated to cost $648 million as of the last milestone estimate in fall 2024. However, after a vote renovate and build an addition to the field house, the estimate was revised to $662 million as of December 2024.
Thanks for the coverage and for keeping the community informed.
The design is beautiful but the cost is staggering. Our residential real estate taxes have already seen a steady rise over the past several years. For empty-nesters who are on the fence about staying, I wonder if this will be the tipping point.
We do need a new high school, but I’m not sure if this is the right one. Also, the current design was mostly developed before the MBTA multi-family zoning mandate, and it doesn’t seem to fully account for the potential impact on school capacity.
I also share Olga’s concern—why hold such an important meeting during peak vacation season?
Peter Kelly’s point was more subtle but resonated with me. While multiple options were technically presented, there’s been a persistent sense that no real alternative was ever on the table.
As a resident, I feel both cornered and conflicted. When the time comes for the debt exclusion vote, I may have to take the ostrich approach.
Agree completely, Helen. My wife and I are empty nesters, but wanted to stay because we love our neighborhood. This extraordinarily expensive project (now even more of a burden to taxpayers due to disappearing energy rebates and an uptick in long-term borrowing costs) will drive us and others out of town. No doubt our 4 bedroom home will again have children in it.
“Almost no one is around?”
That must explain the tumbleweed blowing down Waltham Street.
Good thing that the meeting was on Zoom.
We need a new high school. Period. The Bloom design is quite extraordinary. The costs are high because we, as a community, and our community leaders kept kicking the can down the road. My 3 children attended LHS from 2001-2009. We needed a new high school THEN, but decided to put every other large capital project ahead of the high school, and wasted millions with patchwork solutions for the high school. We are paying for our short sightedness. And make no mistake, the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be. Enough said.
No, The costs are high because of the green design, a brand new building (vs. renovation) and the best of everything added to the design. Lowell, MA just built a high school projected at $344 million and it had cost overruns to $488 million. You can almost guarantee cost overruns in Lexington and they will be blamed on everyone but the town planners.
I believe Lexington’s last few school projects were all completed on budget and on time, and as this article points out, the project team highlighted $124m in contingencies to cover unforeseen costs. The Lexington project is a new build which removes some uncertainty and was estimated to cost less than add/reno options. The cost overruns for the Lowell project – a phased add/reno – are stemming from complications with the renovation phases which have drained the contingency funds and delayed the project completion date (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/lowell-high-school-construction-project-grinds-on/ar-AA1GWVxl). I am glad the SBC, in partnership with the MSBA, has selected a new build design that will cost less and be completed faster for Lexington.
Coereced and cornered. No cost targets were placed before the designs took off. This is a design more suited to a private university campus, than a single town. Does it use the land effectively?NO What could we do if we opted for less lavish approach? No options are being offered – it simply build this “palace” we’ve designed or it’s doomsday. Yes, we need to address the high school building. And with multi-family. housing approved and in the works all over town, we may well need more schools. But this is simply TOO MUCH, particularly when we don’t yet know the impact of tarriffs, federal and state funding or impact on employment. As a long time resident (and one who worked in LHS building for many years and many renovations) I too would prefer not to to wait but we must. It is more important that we get it right, find affordable options so that we can continue to fund the operation of our schools for all our students and not cripple the town financially.
Every time there is a HS cost article like this the reporter should include what the estimated increase in local tax rates will be.
Half billion is real dough. Tell us what the average economic impact on residents will be. Whats the hit on residents???
Not sure why to complaint having the meeting in the summer… it was on Zoom AND repeated in the evening. The High School team is going above and beyond to accommodate people’s schedules. I work during the day like many people so they also offered it at night, again also on Zoom, and with a live Mandarin translator if needed. I was impressed how hard they are working to engage the community. The fact that so few folks were in attendance has nothing to do with the summer IMO – I’m 10X busier in the fall as a parent and other commitments. If they delayed this meeting folks complaining it is in the summer would complain it was delayed to the fall leaving less time to learn about environmental justice issues.
Alex:
Don’t be fooled by appearances. The SBA and its SMMA team do not listen to the public at all when what the public has to say is not to their liking: when I asked on July 31 on Zoom how it made sense for SMMA in slide 8 of 29 of https://lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14955/20250731-PBC-Meeting-R1 to do a simple arithmetic sum over all years of the annual inflation rate (instead of compounding those annual rates to the middle of each construction period) since all $ amounts are supposed to be in $s at mid-point of construction, the “answer” was “we answered your question in that slide” and I was then cut off (my supposed 3 minutes were up, but each committee then wasted time roll-calling to recess, as it had calling each meeting to order…). As a graduate of France’s elite École Polytechnique and a member of France’s 1970 team at the International Math Olympiad in Hungary, I know (far) more math than the SBC and the SMMA put together, so I can tell you that this “response” was the kind of statement one would hear spouted out by a (kangaroo) “Court” in the Soviet Union towards an “enemy of the State”, not something a candid SBC that is truly interested in finding the optimal solution to our needs — a better, larger LHS — should tell a resident who is not exactly uninformed, or uncreative.
Speaking of which, I will soon share with the LexObserver, the proofs I have assembled to demonstrate that the SBC made 2 important assertions that are untrue to support its stubborn refusal to follow the recommendations made by SMMA to increase capacity at LHS in the 2015 Lexington Public Schools
Master Plan https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T4kijJd6CAqnaNJDjSDzTCDi-vD8biNd/view?usp=sharing (pages 58-60 of 504), namely to demolish LHS’s foreign languages building and replace it with a taller “box”.
The SBC’s 2 untrue assertions are:
(i) keeping the current LHS campus going [if Bloom is not built] will cost $300 million [that is simply not so, it would cost FAR less], and
(ii) demolishing 1 building on the LHS campus would require code upgrades in all other remaining buildings [implying that those would be expensive: no such “code upgrades” are in fact required that have not already been done].
Lexington taxes are some of the highest around. When one buys a house in town they must consider the risk that they will go up considerably. This project is making Lexington even more “elite”. Is that the point?
This will be the largest building in town. The town should do a projection of the annual cost of running a planned “all electric” building with our staggering electric rates in Massachusetts. We are some of the highest in the nation.
What a waste of money, time, and environmental resources. For half the cost, we could build a top-tier STEM building right on the current campus within two years—and invest in hiring and retaining the best teachers now. Because in the end, kids don’t dream about fancy buildings; they hope ‘I get a great teacher next year.'”
This is the same tired tale Lana Panasyuk spun during her failed run for School Committee. Last March on Election Day the voters sent a loud, clear message of disagreement with Ms. Panasyuk’s views on the LHS project.
Avram:
Per the “logic” of your post, you would answer any criticism of Trump, like his firing of the BLS Director, with “This is the same tired tale Kamala Harris spun during her failed run for President. Last November on Election Day the voters sent a loud, clear message of disagreement with Kamala Harris’s views on how America should be governed.”, right?
So, Trump is always right given the results of last November’s election, per your “logic”; I beg to disagree.
And our SBC is always right given the results of last March’s election even though 6 of its 14 voting members are Town employees who don’t face real estate tax increases from the 2/3 of $1 billion cost of Bloom, right?
Mr. Mehr, I’m a bit confused, no doubt because I’m not as smart as you. Lana Panasyuk was speculating about what might happen, as are you, claims of so called “accurate data” to the contrary. Trump firing the Director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because she published an accurate report about job growth is a fact. Unless you think Kamala Harris has psychic mind powers that allowed her to foresee the future, your example is a false equivalency. I suspect the data you are going to present to the Observer will be no more accurate than this one.
Avram:
In my opinion, American voters were exactly as “wrong” to elect Trump last November as Lexington voters were “wrong” not to elect Lana last March. That’s the only point I was making with my Kamala analogy. In more general terms, don’t ever trust in the wisdom of crowds (if anything remember the “wisdom” of German voters who elected a certain Chancellor in the 1930s…).
Tired or not, you still remember the power of common sense.
Public opinion is being spun like a campaign ad—even in brainy Lexington—but sooner or later, reality breaks through the buzzwords and back-pats. You could throw every dollar in the world at this, and it still wouldn’t justify dropping a concrete monstrosity in the heart of a historic town.
This isn’t vision—it’s vanity. A reckless display of pride, burning public money and natural resources, while the real needs—great teachers, student support, and actual education—are ignored.
The priorities are off. Go back to the drawing board—
or saddle Lexington with a taxpayer-funded disaster so bloated and misguided, it’ll make the Big Dig look like a bargain.
Even though I disagree with Lana Panasyuk‘s political views, including on the LHS project, I respect her opinions because I believe she believes what she is saying.
Avram:
Thank you, that’s progress. Now spend some time thinking — as opposed to posturing, or defending the SBC simply because it’s “official”, as “official” as Trump, democratically elected, who has the full legal right to fire the BLS Director — about the substance of what Lana, I and many otrhers are saying: the bottom line about the Bloom design is (1) the design is too small at 2,395 students, fewer than we had in 2024-25 while this new HS is supposed to last for 70 years; (2) the SBC propagated untruths on “code upgrades needed on all other LHS buildings if 1 LHS building is demolished” and “it will cost $300 million to keep the LHS campus going” to “explain” why they never looked at a staged design on the current LHS campus as the Schools’ own 2015 Facilities Planning document recommended, so I have ZERO confidence that spending 2/3 of $1 billion on Bloom makes sense; (3) the necessary land for Bloom is not available until article 97 swap has not been legally challenged, and is done; (4) we still don’t know what it will cost to move the CO out of Bloom, and/or to expand a wing of Bloom to increase capacity if thousands of new MBTA dwellings generate so many more HS students that Bloom will require it. In sum, there is no good reason to vote YES on the DE.
I respect Lana Panasyuk’s opinion. There are other critics of the Bloom design who have injected themselves into this discussion who are just noodges.
Believe it or not, Mr. Mehr, there are many people who are just as smart as you who have spent a great deal of time thinking about this since the process began, and who have decided the Bloom design is the best solution for the town. Your “recommendations” have been refuted and discredited repeatedly — there is no need to rehash all of that yet again. But because from early on the discussion did not go your way, you resorted to accusations of lies and disinformation by the SBC and the town.
I hope, Mr. Mehr, that you don’t have such a low opinion of Lexington residents that you think the residents will not be making an informed decision when it comes time for the debt exclusion vote. Personally, I think Lexington residents are smart and thoughtful, that they are deeply vested in the planning process for the new LHS, and because of that, when the votes are tallied we will be moving forward with the Bloom design.
Avram:
I don’t have “recommendations” (I am no architect, I am only a fact-based, autistic math nerd), but I did have many questions for the SBC and all were “answered” with deflections, meaning that they were consistently ignored.
Deflection #1: adding Weave as a possible design was done ONLY so that the SBC could assert (incorrectly) that a phased design was studied when Weave is NOT what the Schools’ own 2015 Facilities Planning document (prepared by SMMA) proposed, which I and many others want studied before we spend 2/3 of $1 billion on a design that accommodates fewer students than we have today. No phased design whereby a “box” would replace the LHS foreign languages building was ever studied to alleviate overcrowding FASTER than Bloom can and then wait until we know whether the finished new High School should be sized for 2,500, 3,000, 3,500 or more students.
Deflection #2: the SBC has asserted that “it would cost $300 million to keep the current LHS campus operating” (i.e. if a true phased design was adopted) and “if 1 building on the LHS campus is demolished, all other buildings will require code upgrades” (i.e. again, if a true phased design was adopted): both assertions are untrue, as I received just today proof of as a result of a Public Records Request I filed.
Deflection #3: I, and others, have asked many times what the investment costs would be for the 2 strategies Julie has put forward, besides a higher occupancy rate than the standard 85%, should we have more than 2,395 students to accommodate in Bloom, (a) moving the CO out of Bloom, and (b) extending out one wing of Bloom, both (a) and (b) to create additional classroom space. Those 2 investments have still not been costed: why? Is it because they would add several more $10 millions or $100 million to the $660 million that Bloom costs now for 2,395 students (we had 2,425 students this past school year)?
I could go on. For example, what is Plan B should Bloom not be built? When PAYT was (successfully) challenged in court (as the article 97 land swap Bloom needs to see the light of day could also be) after all our then leaders had supported PAYT, a bit like they all now support Bloom, Plan B was easy: we went back to regular trash collection. But if Bloom doesn’t happen, Lexington kids will continue to study in an overcrowded LHS only because the SBC stubbornly pursued one option, Bloom, without any Plan B.
Bottom line, this is not about how smart, unpolitical or arrogant Patrick is (he is all three…), it’s about hard facts. And I have evidence for each fact I state — because I am autistic.
Whether voters will care to understand the weeds I described above, and more (why destroy the fields if a solution exists that would preserve them? why are important meetings held in the middle of the summer when Lexington is empty of most people? etc) we will know when the results of the debt exclusion are in. As I told you already, the “wisdom of crowds” — Lexington voters in this case, all American voters last November in the presidential election — is not something, as an unpolitical nerd, I believe in. You evidently do, which is certainly your right.
My apologies Mr. Mehr, you don’t make recommendations, you give advice. Hmmm… now that I’m thinking about it, advice and recommendation are synonyms.
https://lexobserver.org/2025/03/20/letters-to-the-editor-my-advice-to-the-select-board/
I think an important point is that once the concrete is poured it is hard to unwind.
Maybe the real question is how much do we invest in capital (the bldg) vs. labor (better teacher comp to attract best and brightest)? My vote is for labor.
Avram:
You are correct that I recommended (in no uncertain terms, by the way) that the SB do certain things in my https://lexobserver.org/2025/03/20/letters-to-the-editor-my-advice-to-the-select-board/. But the various deflections I got from the SBC regarding Bloom were in reaction to questions, not to recommendations.
My only (because I am not an architect nor a construction expert, only a logical numbers person who reads old reports) recommendation to the SBC is the exact same one the Schools’ own 2015 Facilities Planning report made should increased capacity be needed on the LHS campus — as is now the case –, namely to replace the LHS foreign languages building with a building with many more sq ft of space (which I have called a multi-story box).
The SBC has refused to follow that recommendation, which leads us to the disaster that Bloom is — too expensive, too small, in the fields, possibly never to occur (passage of a debt exclusion and unchallenged article 97 land swap needed), too cramped a design, too long to build to alleviate overcrowding as quickly as a multi-story box would, etc, etc.