Seven assertions by our School Building Committee (SBC) to justify Bloom as our new High School are untrue, making Bloom a fatally flawed design not worth spending $660 million on.
1. “It would cost $300 million to continue running the current LHS campus”
I filed a Public Records Request (PRR) to receive all documents on the basis of which the SBC asserts this $300 million figure. I received a single document, this VFA study listing each piece of equipment in each LHS building, and which states, based on a recommended replacement schedule, when each piece of equipment must be replaced and at what cost. This spreadsheet adds up the costs of these recommended replacements, $303,507,645 in total — the SBC’s $300 million.
The first significant VFA-recommended investment is on page 25 of 1,082 of the VFA document, $5,464,649 on “Unit Ventilators – Heating Only (SF) Renewal” in LHS’s “A,B,C,D,E – Main” building(s) due on January 13, 2020 (the “Expenditure”). Via another PRR, I asked “to receive all engineering, accounting, financial or other document(s) regarding this Expenditure — including, but not limited to, detailed studies, purchase orders, invoices or proofs of payments — showing the date(s) when the work was done, and the cost(s) of the work done regarding this Expenditure.” In response, Town Counsel stated that no documents exist regarding this Expenditure. So this $5,464,649 investment was never done, even though VFA said it should have been done years ago — and the LHS campus has continued to function, which means that the SBC’s $300 million assertion is invalid.
2. “The November 2024 Special Town Meeting debate showed that a phased project is not feasible”
The report of the Capital Expenditures Committee provided unreliable information in November 2024: it stated “a more realistic construction cost for a 172,000 sq. ft. building, based on our own retained estimators’ square footage figures, is $243 million”. That $243 million “cost” for a simple multi-story structure, a “box”, replacing the LHS foreign languages building was “doodled” (the author’s term, not mine) here. It was never professionally cost-estimated by the SBC. To assume the same cost per sq. ft. for a simple “box” with only classrooms as for Bloom (with its auditorium, curved wings, Central Office requiring a separate entrance, etc) is clearly inappropriate: a “box” is cheaper. So the November 2024 discussion proves nothing about Bloom being the correct design for our new High School.
3. “We looked at designs that do not impact the fields and at a two-phase design”
No, the SBC never considered a true two-phased design that leaves the fields intact, Phase 1 of which would be what the 2015 Lexington Public Schools Master Plan recommended — to demolish the LHS foreign languages building and replace it with a “box”. Instead its Weave design is a full renovation of the whole LHS campus, for only 2,395 students (like Bloom). Many of us want to see a more immediate, less costly addition on the LHS campus that preserves the fields and eases overcrowding sooner than Bloom can. And once we know how many new MBTA dwellings will exist in Town (possibly many thousands), and only then, will we know how many students a new High School designed to last for 70 years should eventually be able to accommodate — certainly not just 2,395 as Bloom does, which is fewer students than we have now.
4. “If one building on the LHS campus is demolished, ‘code upgrades’ will be required on all other LHS buildings”
The implication is that these “code upgrades” would make a true two-phase design overly expensive. I filed a PRR to receive all documents the SBC has to base this assertion on. In response, Town Counsel stated that no such documents exist. So the SBC’s assertion is untrue. In response to the same question, Building Commissioner James Kelly wrote to me that handicap accessibility would be required — but handicap accessibility upgrades have already been done on all LHS buildings.
5. “Tax increases from Bloom will be small for residents”
If justified, I support tax increases because I want Lexington’s schools to remain the best in Massachusetts. But tax increases for Bloom are not justified because:
– the SBC doesn’t know what a true two-phase design would cost, not having studied and professionally cost-estimated a true two-phase design;
– Bloom, at 2,395 students capacity, is evidently too small to last us 70 years since we had over 2,400 students in 2024-25 and given the upcoming MBTA developments;
– Bloom is located in the fields, destroying their continuity;
– Bloom offers less space per student than similar recent High Schools; and
– the SBC has no plan B should the necessary article 97 land swap fail in the courts — as Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) failed years ago– or be delayed, or if the December 2025 Debt Exclusion fails.
And another looming issue must be modelled. Boston-area office and lab buildings have high vacancy rates post-Covid. If this continues, assessments of office and lab buildings in Lexington will decline while assessments of residential properties continue to rise in line with rising sale prices of houses in Lexington. This will create a shift of the tax burden, lowering taxes for commercial properties, and raising taxes for us, residential taxpayers. This issue is independent of whether or not we spend $660 million on Bloom, but it will make the impact of the Bloom debt service higher that what the Town now projects.
6. “The SBC is listening to the public”
No, despite umpteen public meetings, it is not. Besides never having professionally cost-estimated a true two-phase design, the SBC is not candid with the public as shown above. Doesn’t the SBC realize that we understand simple arithmetic and logic in Lexington? Case in point: instead of claiming (in slide 5 of 29 of the July 31, 2025 PBC presentation) that the cost of Bloom to taxpayers is now $13.4 million lower than it was before, the SBC “forgets” in that slide what it told us a few months ago, namely to expect $50 million in Federal and State energy incentives for the geothermal wells and other energy saving equipment Bloom includes. That $50 million is now $9 million from the State only, so an extra $41 million ($50 million minus $9 million) will have to be paid by taxpayers. Net result is that the cost of Bloom to taxpayers has risen by $41 million (not shown on that slide) minus $13.4 million (shown in red on that slide): Bloom’s cost to taxpayers is now $27.6 million higher than before.
Another example: I had to appeal the SBC’s refusal to send me the draft calculations yielding the new estimated $110 million MSBA grant, and the State formally ordered the Town of Lexington to provide me that information. Why did the SBC not answer my simple question directly by providing this public document? Why does the SBC systematically cut off a resident during the Q&A periods after 3 minutes while the resident’s question has been ignored? Why is the SBC not candid with us, taxpayers?
7. “Bloom is less costly per square foot than the new Revere High school”
Slide 19 of 24 of this SBC presentation claims to compare High School costs “apples-to-apples”. The slide does not do that because, while it corrects for different time schedules between Bloom and Revere as must be done, it does not correct for the expensive Minuteman Tech-type vocational education spaces included in Revere, which Bloom does not have.
Such spaces represent 8.7% of Revere’s total space (per page 15 of 20 of this document). Once the high costs of these expensive vocational education spaces are removed from Revere’s total $493 million cost, which slide 19 failed to do, the lower cost High School is not Bloom (contrary to what the SBC incorrectly asserts in slide 19), it’s the Revere High School.
Lexington was invited into the MSBA process in March 2022 and the School building Committee (SBC) has been leading an open, public, comprehensive process over the last three years. The process has included working with the community, LHS staff and students, professional designers and architects, town committees and departments like Appropriation, Capital Expenditures, Permanent Building, Recreation, School, Select Board, Public Facilities, Finance, Sustainable Lexington. We’ve partnered with the MSBA, whose purpose is to invest in “right-sized, most fiscally responsible and educationally appropriate solutions” for school building projects and which requires towns to follow a prescribed process to ensure design and construction of an educationally-appropriate, flexible, sustainable, and cost-effective public school facility.
There have been hundreds of meetings to review and analyze dozens of alternatives and scope out options for our high school. They considered so many possibilities, from reorganizing grades, modulars, repair and renovation of existing buildings, small additions, large additions, phased in place plans, building a new school on alternative town land. After comprehensive review and planning, a deep dive into 19 different design options plus additional community submissions, building a new school on the fields next to the current school emerged as the best and most cost-effective option for Lexington. Arriving at the decision to pursue the Bloom project – the fastest and most economical option – took years of careful consideration and consensus by a multitude of town staff, committee members, MA state personnel, experts, and community members supporting the SBC.
I appreciate Patrick Mehr’s passion for fiscal responsibility and analysis. However, many of his declarations are misleading and incomplete, and it’s important for our community to have accurate information about what went into and continues to go into the decision-making, and an understanding that the Bloom project will be the least expensive option that meets our educational and physical space needs.
Q: Isn’t the $300M “repair estimate” for the current buildings exaggerated?
A: No—it comes from a professional facility assessment, and includes all the necessary repair work required for the current LHS should it not be replaced.
Q: Isn’t a phased plan (like a “box” on Foreign Language building) a cheaper option?
A: Actually, that could cost $860+ million—over $300 million more for the taxpayers than Bloom, as it would not be eligible for the estimated $111 million MSBA reimbursement. The team looked at multiple phased options (including “Thrive” community submissions and the design from the 2015 Master Plan that replace the foreign language building) and they were all projected to cost more than Bloom, so we would pay more out of pocket if we chose that path.
Q: Did the SBC consider phased or in-place alternatives?
A: Yes. The SBC studied several options (about two dozen) over two years and found that all of the phased plans would be more expensive, take longer, and cause major disruption to students. The longer we wait to address the conditions at LHS, the more it will cost.
Q: Is Bloom too small for future enrollment?
A: Bloom is designed to serve 2,395 students at 85% capacity, with built-in flexibility to accommodate over 3,200 if needed. It includes options for additional space without major redesign. It is large enough to accommodate Lexington’s projected enrollment even when accounting for current projections of new housing from MBTA Communities Act zoning.
Q: What about the tax impact?
A: Current modeling on the project website indicates Bloom may increase taxes by approximately $1,750 per year for the average homeowner (much less in the first 10 years, beginning with $300 in 2028 and reaching $1,750 in 2035). This is significant, but it is less than the tax increases associated with alternative plans. The town has been planning and saving for this project for over a decade, with 40+ million in the Capital Stabilization Fund and 6+ million per year already set aside to help pay for it. The town is continuing to work to find ways to lessen the impact for taxpayers and should be releasing updated modeling shortly.
Q: Is the Article 97 land swap risky?
A: This is a manageable legal step that many towns have handled successfully, and our project team has successfully managed this process with other projects. In addition, any option we pursue (in place, phased, add/reno) would require the swap since a piece of the current LHS buildings sit on park land. Unnecessary delays associated with this step in the process risk driving up costs even more.
Q: Is Bloom more expensive than other high school projects in Massachusetts?
A: Bloom’s cost per square foot is in line with the range of cost per square foot of other communities building high schools right now and recently, like North Attleborough, Waltham, Revere, etc. Comparing projects is a “blunt tool” that can’t account for all project differences, but the project team continues to check this comparison adjusting for schedule and major scope items to confirm the costs are similar across the board. Patrick has made a mistake in his recalculation above as Lexington and Revere have about the same amount and type of vocational and technology space, but regardless, it is comforting to see that Lexington’s costs are comparable to others in any of the analyses.
Brielle:
You did not read all the links in my 7 points, or did not understand them. If you had, you would already know what I reiterate below about each of your Q&As. Facts are (stubborn) facts, regardless of process and/or number of meetings held by the SBC and/or number of committees the SBC worked with.
Q: Isn’t the $300M “repair estimate” for the current buildings exaggerated?
It is, and vastly so: see my point #1.
Q: Isn’t a phased plan (like a “box” on Foreign Language building) a cheaper option?
Nobody knows, because the SBC never studied nor professionally cost-estimated such a design; its Phase 1 cost was only “doodled” in an obviously wrong manner (a “box” costs less per sq ft than Bloom) as explained in my #2. Thrive was not a two-phased design (of which the end capacity cannot be known today), it was a staged renovation of the current LHS campus with the same 2,395-students capacity as Bloom. Former School Committee member Olga Guttag has developed a way for a true two-phase design to be MSBA-eligible, but the SBC has refused to hear from her.
Q: Did the SBC consider phased or in-place alternatives?
Yes, but none that is a true two-phased design, as I explained just above.
Q: Is Bloom too small for future enrollment?
Yes. The SBC never told us (a) how much beyond $660 million it would cost us to increase Bloom’s capacity from 2,395 to 3,200 students, nor (b) what its plan is if MBTA dwellings result in more than 3,200 high school students. A new High School is supposed to last for 70 years, and in 2024-35 we had already 2,425 high school students, 30 more than Bloom can accommodate. So 2,395 students is FAR too small: that’s the main reason why Bloom is for me an obviously flawed design that wastes $660 million.
Q: What about the tax impact?
The Town’s current modeling of the tax impact of Bloom ignores 2 critical factors: (1) rising vacancies in office and lab buildings around Boston will reduce the assessments of commercial properties in Lexington, which in turn will result in increased taxes for us, residents (because the total {commercial + residential} taxes paid to the Town rise annually by 2.5%; in short, we face a shift of the tax burden from commercial to residential properties not modeled by the Town), and (2) rental apartment buildings today pay only 36% of what single-family houses of the same size (sq ft of livable space) pay; if this flaw in our tax system is not fixed, the tax burden on single family houses will increase further as MBTA developments are built because 88% of them will be rental apartments.
Q: Is the Article 97 land swap risky?
As risky as Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) was some 20 years ago, when the then Board of Selectmen and all the Town committees the SBC so closely worked with to come up with Bloom told us that PAYT was a great idea and then… PAYT was declared illegal by the courts, so it never happened. The SBC is playing poker with our great schools by having no Plan B should the article 97 land swap go the way of PAYT. I don’t play poker; instead, I do prudent fact- and scenario-based long-term planning, something the SBC appears to not even know exists.
Q: Is Bloom more expensive than other high school projects in Massachusetts?
As the SBC’s consultants have correctly said, this is very difficult to ascertain, because each High School has different spaces (for vocational education, for SPED like LABBB for varying numbers of students, for a CO in the building or not, for underground parking or not, etc). My #7 says that the SBC should be more candid than to only adjust for the obvious — different time lines — which evidently and conveniently produced a slide to “demonstrate” that Bloom is cheap — it is not. And no, Bloom does not have as much vocational education space as Revere — check the link in my #7.