Town Meeting voted to appropriate funds and swap land to build the new Lexington High School as it is currently designed during its special session Monday night.
About 91 percent of voters and nearly all board and committee leaders supported the motion under Article 8, which asked the town to appropriate approximately $648 million to complete the LHS building project.
“The Bloom design (the nickname for the design of the new LHS) for a new high school is big enough, will provide a healthy learning environment…uses durable materials, and uses the latest technology. To me, that’s a good plan,” resident Todd Burger argued.
Select Board member Doug Lucente was one of the few who was not in support.
He argued the investment in solar on and around the new building is “beyond balance” and the School Building Committee has not adequately considered residents’ concerns throughout the design process, among other worries.
“While Lexington needs a new high school, this is not the right project,” he stated. “I’ve heard from too many residents, parents, and neighbors who felt unheard for raising concerns…when we discount valid opinions, we weaken the entire process.”
Some meeting attendees agreed with Lucente’s thoughts.
“Revolving-door-Lexington is in full swing,” Letitia Hom, a Town Meeting member representing Precinct 7, said during the meeting. “Lexington is heading over a financial cliff that is unrecoverable…this project is too expensive.”
But the voices in support of Article 8 far outweighed the opposition. Town Meeting members, residents, current students, and future LHS attendees lined up to champion the new building.
“I’m an old guy…why would I support a school that I will never use?” resident and former Town Meeting member Jamie Katz asked rhetorically. “Your vote tonight has to honor the past but also protect the future, the Bloom design does that,” Katz said.
The motion under Article 8 specifically asked the town to appropriate $647,921,834 to demolish the current LHS building, renovate the field house, build the new LHS onto the renovated field house, equip and furnish it, and build the new athletics fields, parking areas, and other accessory facilities.
The town appropriated $11,825,000 to conduct a feasibility study for the project during a special session in 2022 and annual Town Meeting in 2023. Put together, the feasibility study cost and the money the town voted to appropriate last night is equal to $659.7 million, the current estimated cost of the entire project.
Town Meeting then passed a motion under Article 9, which asks the town to swap the recreation fields on the high school parcel for land on which the current high school is built so the new LHS can be built on the current recreation fields, with 92.3 percent support.
The motion also asks the town to protect the new recreation land as such so Lexington does not lose any recreation space. The town still has to get approval of the swap from the state for it to be final.
Town Meeting also passed the motions under Article 3, which had to do with appropriating about $934,782 to and from stabilization funds; Article 4, which asked the town to amend its fiscal year 2026 operating, enterprise, and CPA budgets; Article 6, which had to do with revolving funds; and Article 7, which asked the town to adopt the state’s HERO Act, which aims to enhance tax relief for disabled veterans. Town Meeting also passed motions under Articles 2, 5, 10, and 11 under a consent agenda (a method to pass several routine motions at once).
Next on the to-do list for the LHS building project is the debt exclusion vote, which is slated for Dec. 8. That is when Lexington residents will vote on whether or not the town moves forward with the LHS building project as it is currently planned. If that vote fails, the School Building Committee will have a few months to re-pitch its plan to residents before a second and final debt exclusion vote.
In April 2023, Town Meeting enthusiastically zoned 227 acres for MBTA developments by a 107-63-1 vote on article 34 (per https://www.lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8874/2023-04-12-Vote-Records).
The only Select Board member who opposed this terrible decision was Doug Lucente.
In March 2025, a Special Town Meeting realized how inept the April 2023 decision had been and scaled the 227 acres down to 80 — but (most of) the damage could not be fixed, due to the 8-year zoning freezes developers enjoy.
Last night Town Meeting enthusiastically supported Bloom by a 155-15-5 vote on article 8 (per https://lex2025atm.townmeeting.online/view-votes-public).
The only Select Board member who opposed this terrible decision was Doug Lucente.
If Bloom is built, in 10-12 years Town Meeting will realize how inept its decision had been.
But unlike zoning one cannot undo Bloom, so we will have to spend many more tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to make Bloom what it should have been to begin with — a larger facility than one sized for today’s enrollments.
I wish more than just 1 out of 5 Select Board members was capable of thinking straight about the key strategic decisions Lexington must make.
Patrick, your commentary here is simply wrong on the facts and misleading in its framing. You’ve posted the same claims across nearly every forum — the Lexington Residents and Parents Facebook groups, multiple public meetings, and now here — and they’ve been corrected each time by data, by officials, and by the public record itself. The zoning revision, Town Meeting vote, and MSBA process have all been explained repeatedly and transparently.
It’s one thing to disagree; it’s another to keep recycling debunked talking points while attacking the competence and character of the people who volunteer their time to lead this town. Calling Town Meeting members and Select Board officials “inept,” “incapable of thinking straight,” or “terrible decision-makers” isn’t civic discourse — it’s name-calling. That same tone has played out across Facebook threads, public comment sections, and now here, and it’s exactly what the Observer’s own policy cautions against: “common sense civility — we’re all neighbors.”
We can and should debate the project. But doing so requires respect for facts and for each other — something your language has repeatedly lacked.
Well said!
As has been established through multiple public meetings, Bloom has the capacity to expand to accommodate roughly 3,000 students – which is as large as you want a single high school to be. Beyond that, we’re looking at a second site… if we need to.
In October, the Superintendent’s office has released updated projections through 2031, accounting for both planned development and the falling elementary school population. (Unsurprisingly, one-bedroom apartments don’t tend to contribute a lot of kids to the school system.) They’re estimating the LHS population in 2031 to be ca. 2043 to 2541 – all completely within the capacity of the Bloom design.
LHS is at the end of its life. Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to shore up a school that’s too small, let’s invest in a school that will be the right size for Lexington for years to come.
It will never be cheaper to rebuild LHS than it is now.
The enrollment update:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1a3irRX-huo4nrP0HoLckf7r8OZT-wy56HFt5S87zluQ/edit?slide=id.g39eb8fe8e9d_0_19#slide=id.g39eb8fe8e9d_0_19
The MBTA zoning overlay, allows at least 1500 new residential units in Lexington, these are not “1 bedroom apartments” The first, and almost completed project on Bedford st is all 2 and 3 bedroom condos. People move to Lexington for the schools, they bring children, it’s perfectly within reason to assume that there will be 2 children in every unit, this adds 3000 students to the school system, about 1/3 in the high school.
“The Superintendent’s office” has “skin in the game” and their projections should be viewed as potentially biased.
The problem is not the new school, it’s the unprofessional way it has been designed and presented, as “the only option”
Our priorities have become our school ranking, instead of our community values. This posture has turned us into a transient feeding trough, at the cost of community values.
My town has become a cold and lifeless habitat for the transient elite. and this project, I’m afraid will make it more so.
I understand where this concern comes from. We all love Lexington because we care deeply about the schools and the character of the town. But nearly every statement here is incorrect or misleading.
First, Lexington’s MBTA zoning overlay does NOT authorize 1,500 multi-bedroom family units. The law requires an allowable capacity of that number, not actual construction. Nearly all Lexington sites are small parcels where real-world build-out will be far lower. The state’s own implementation guidelines and Lexington Planning Department’s housing impact study both project hundreds, not thousands, of new units over decades, with typical yields under 0.2 students per unit — not “two children per unit.”
Second, the Superintendent’s enrollment projections weren’t “biased”; they were done by independent demographers and reviewed in public forums, with methodology and data posted online. Those projections were validated again through the MSBA process, which cross-checks local numbers before approving funding. The Superintendent DOES have “skin in the game” in that it is making sure students have safe, functional schools — not personal gain. Their projections are vetted by the MSBA, not self-written wish lists.
Third, the new high school design wasn’t forced as “the only option.” It’s the result of five years of studies, dozens of public meetings, cost modeling, and multiple independent reviews. Town Meeting just endorsed it 155–15 — and voters had affirmed that direction in the March 2025 town election by electing candidates who (vocally) supported moving the project forward. That’s not secrecy or haste; that’s democracy doing exactly what it’s supposed to.
Finally, reducing Lexington’s long-term education investment to “a feeding trough for the transient elite” is not only inaccurate, it’s unfair to the thousands of families who have built this community over generations. We can disagree about costs or design choices, but we should at least start from facts — and from mutual respect for the people who make Lexington what it is.
The 312 units now under construction at 17 Hartwell Ave on 5.25 acres (per https://www.lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13695/Stamped_Decision-0017_Hartwell_SPR-VHO-2024-Stamped_12-12-2024?bidId=) that you can see at https://drive.google.com/file/d/15lTORCFZ_W3ldw63R1PL5ITFioSXp7wf/view?usp=sharing are not my idea of a “small parcel”.
And Town Meeting has been seriously wrong before, when it zoned 227 acres for MBTA developments (like this 17 Hartwell Ave project) in April 2023 when, just like for Bloom this week, all Select Board members supported that terrible decision except for Doug Lucente.
I take umbrage to the comment that I am spreading incorrect or misleading information.
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the buyers of a 2-3 bedroom condo in Lexington, where Schools are the number one draw, could have 2 children per unit.
There are already, in the permit pipeline, projects totaling 1500 dwelling units , and they’re not small! The militia drive approved plan has over 400 residential units, alone!
And there is still significant acreage available for more projects in the overlay district which will increase this number significantly.
The transient residents who take advantage of our schools (because ultimately it costs much less than the private school options) are a portion of the community, why would that be an insult to the residents who have remained here and built the community? In fact why is it an insult to anyone, it’s simply a fact. The long term residents obviously do not contribute to the problem I refer to. But it would be ignorant to deny that this problem exists.
We have created an environment that values our school infrastructure and performance above all else, and this has transformed this town, love it or hate it, but you can’t deny it.
And this project perpetuates this situation.
If you like the situation vote for it, if you don’t then vote against it.
It may be reasonable, but it isn’t correct. The School Department has been spending a *lot* of time reviewing enrollment projections. I encourage you to read what the experts we pay to run our schools have to say about the matter.
By the way – a lot of the “transient residents” in town are the kids who grew up here, who can’t stay in town because there aren’t enough affordable housing options – like apartments for 20-somethings entering the workforce.
The most recent Lexington Public Schools enrollment update:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1a3irRX-huo4nrP0HoLckf7r8OZT-wy56HFt5S87zluQ/edit?slide=id.g39eb8fe8e9d_0_19#slide=id.g39eb8fe8e9d_0_19
What is the plan to remove snow and ice from the 3rd floor courtyard?
I asked at one of the final SBC meetings about snow removal under the window sills facing inward to the courtyard, thinking about safety concerns. The custodians will be shoveling snow away ftom.the window sills. I believe the snow will not be removed off site; there’s an infiltration system which allows the water out of the building. I did raise concerns at the following meeting re: encouraging water into the building. But, Mike Cronin said the architects reassured him that there would nit be issues/leaks.
It does not seem realistic that the custodians will remove the snow like they do the current courtyard. Are they really going to shove it into piles with a snowblower or are they going to shovel it into carts and cart it outside?
I asked a construction expert about it and got a response that the courtyard should have a roof construction of insulation and membrane over a metal roof deck with a concrete topping slab. Over the roof membrane should be raised roof pavers. The raised pavers will probably have a heating element, snow melt system below them.
It should also have a roof drainage system to remove rain and melted snow. If the courtyard is enclosed, snow drifts loadings will have to be taken into consideration. This a design feature that could be taken into consideration to remove or redesign as a cost saving.
Is the courtyard going to have heating elements or was that not added due to the expense of running it?
Is there a need for a 3rd fl courtyard? As it’s not a necessity. We’ve been down this road before with the current LHS design. Although the vast majority of us teens back in the day loved the open campus concept, however during the winter months it was not uncommon for someone to slip and fall on a patch of ice on the concrete slope(now inhabited by modulars)from the science building to C House (the math building). Yes, we need a new school but do we need all of these costly bells and whistles. I fear these luxuries are soon going to be obsolete requiring a ton of upkeep posing a financial burden for our community. My concerns could be proven wrong.
Laura, I agree with you. When I asked a question about the courtyard in a SBC meeting I was told the kids brought that up as something they wanted in the new building. However, the current courtyard cannot truly be replicated – one of the reasons students like the courtyard I think is it allows for independence and a common place for students to be with their friends. Also, I think sometimes students eat there and with a larger cafeteria, I don’t believe the courtyard will be used in that manner (but maybe it will?). Regardless, I’ve been told several times “things change” and the students who asked for the courtyard won’t be there when this building is built. It’s not a necessity as you pointed out, and I agree that it sets up potential expenditures in the future which would not be necessary otherwise.
I hope you all do not mind a few more questions about the design as featured in the presentation video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ-JjrHZ7y0):
1. With the cafeteria seating 800, what is the plan to feed all the students?
2. What sound attenuation is going to be in place for that 2-story area?
3. For the large step area in the cafeteria from the 2nd to the 1st floor, where are handicapped areas and handrails for safety?
4. How many elevators will be in place for the handicapped students?
5. Considering the featured library, how much are the high school students now using books?
6. Could there be solar panels on the roofs?
7. Is there an auditorium for concerts, plays, etc.?
Hi!
It’s important to ensure that answers come from reliable sources. If the answers to your questions will determine how you will vote on the debt exclusion, please check with the following reliable sources:
• LHS Building Project website https://www.lhsproject.lexingtonma.org/
• LHS Building Project Chatbot (reliable-ish; created by the Youth Steam Initiative; it’s an AI using official documents, but AI can be wrong) https://chat.youthsteaminitiative.org/
• School Building Committee: https://www.lexingtonma.gov/1422/School-Building-Committee
Jeri:
I have found some of the official-sounding sources you cite to NOT be reliable, like the SBC which asserted 7 things about Bloom which I demonstrated to be untrue on https://lexobserver.org/2025/08/18/letters-to-the-editor-some-facts-about-bloom/.
My Boston Globe https://drive.google.com/file/d/136cJxAYPztsy-5V5D2RrGC-la1g6tptd/view?usp=sharing op-ed explains why Bloom is the wrong design of the new High School Lexington needs. Bloom is too small, given the likely 5,750 new MBTA dwellings coming to Town; Bloom is respectively 30%, 25% and 14% more expensive per square foot than the new Watertown, Belmont and Arlington High Schools instead of being cheaper than those 3 schools from economies of scale (Bloom’s total square footage is much more than each of those 3 schools); and the SBC ignored a better on-campus, phased and box-based design under the false pretenses of disruptions during construction. A NO vote on December 8 will finally force the SBC to design and cost estimate this better design.
I wish I understood why Town officials — e.g. 4 Select Board members, but not Doug Lucente who was also wise enough in April 2023 to oppose zoning 227 acres for MBTA dwellings when the rest of the Select Board was unthinking about MBTA zoning as it is now about Bloom, supporting 227 acres which may now result in 5,750 new units in Town, increasing Lexington’s population by 48% (while Bloom is sized for today’s LHS enrollment!) — are so enamored of Bloom. To add insult to injury, even if voters approve the December 8 debt exclusion, Bloom may well never be built because the land in the fields where it is sited may not be available due to environmental issues.
Louis,
1) The plan is for 3 lunch periods. There is additional seating on the second floor and other expansion areas that accommodate more students if needed.
2) Yes, there are sound absorption materials (we saw these in practice at Waltham HS where they work quite well)
3) There are handrails along the outer steps (this “learning stairs” feature is common in modern schools)
4) There are elevators in each wing
5) You’ll need to contact the school department for that info – but I’ve been told we are heavy users of books
6) There are solar panels on the roof
7) Yes, there is a 1000 seat auditorium (same as Waltham) and areas for small performances
Thank you Joe for the answers. However from the video provided by Turner, there are no solar panels on the roof. There are solar panels only above the parking lot.
The new Watertown high school has solar panels going up on their roof which will obviously help control heat and add life to the roof underneath:
Rooftop: The majority of the solar panels are located on the roof. There is a solar canopy that also provides shade for the HVAC equipment below.
Solar canopy: A solar canopy is situated over the HVAC equipment on the roof.
Parking lot arrays: Some panels are on rooftop arrays in the parking lots to provide shade and protect cars from the weather.
Louis,
There will be 1.25 MW of solar energy systems installed on the rooftop. The final Schematic Design documents for the entire school design can be found here.
One page 91, the SD submission discusses the solar energy system installation size including breaking out rooftop and canopy sizes.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QLJuRnigT_6aN2kd3InXaJv4QXkO41OI/view?usp=drive_link
Every school design has different constraints. The Watertown High School parking lots have only about 1/4 the number of parking spots as the Lexington High School parking lots.
Thank you Mark. That did not get into the Turner video.
I appreciate your role in helping combat climate change!
Mark:
More importantly, in my https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PcH2CCi7DjPlKq10Q0ZhS41RU4VY6D9O/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true comparison which shows Bloom to cost 30% more per square foot than the new Watertown High School, I removed Watertown’s underground garage because Bloom has no underground garage.
Louis,
The school is designed with solar panels on the roof. From the schematic design report submitted to the MSBA:
“– The Solar PV system consists of a roof mounted
Solar PV array and a large set of parking Solar
PV canopies.”
The video is a rendering of the new building it doesn’t show everything (it doesn’t show the gym, the auditorium, etc.). Other imagery prepared by the architects has shown the rooftop solar panels.
Is it possible to provide more information as to why LHS building costs per sq foot are significantly more than in other towns e.g., Burlington? What are the specific reasons as to this price increase.
Thank you:)
Laura,
The committee has compared anticipated costs with those of other schools. Several key considerations lead to the differences in costs:
Lexington has a larger student body than most (Lexington is designing for 2395 and Burlington designing for about 1000).
Some project contracts were priced before steep construction inflation during the Covid Pandemic.
Each project has different site constraints.
Most projects were built before changes in the state building code.
You can find a video explaining these considerations that was presented in August of 2024 at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pg1JJPdeKNYT0aP_Sqqf-L1lA8G99UoC/view?usp=sharing
We have also compared details against schools that are more recent and the costs for the Lexington project are in line with those seen elsewhere when the projects are normalized for size and related factors.
Thank you Joe:)
I agree with everything that Doug Lucente said. I have been torn about the project and was going to skip the vote on 12/8 to avoid a difficult decision, but now I am going to vote to support an important minority voice.