LexObserver is working on a news article that will cover more information on this topic.
On Friday, August 7, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) gave notice that it has accepted the appeal of a ten-citizen group, represented by me, requesting that it issue a Superseding Order of Conditions (SOC) to supplement the Conservation Commission’s Order Of Conditions (OOC) issued on June 29.
No work has been done on the project other than putting up fencing. And none can be done until a final order is issued by MassDEP.
The appeal claims that the town did not consider alternatives to building on bordering vegetative wetland (BVWs), as required by state law. If there were no feasible way to accomplish this, it would have been frivolous to file the appeal, but there are feasible ways, that can serve the town better than the current design.
MassDEP policy provides a process that encourages all parties—the Select Board, the Conservation Commission, MassDEP, contractor Turner Construction, and the public—to quickly reach agreement to resolve the appeal in a non-adversarial manner.
The process begins with a site visit by MassDEP, scheduled for Thursday, 10:30AM, August 27, when the parties will each speak to the appeal and then walk the site. Ideally, they will have already worked with each other over the short time leading up to the visit and will work together after it. The final order can then describe an agreement already made, not a rejection of the project, or an order that puts additional demands on the town.
I believe that the public should play a significant role in this process:
1. If the building plans have to be modified, our ten-citizen group has proposed two alternatives that illustrate the range of possible outcomes: Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
2. The town already has the means to determine the feasibility and costs to meet the law. The town hired Turner Construction Company as a Construction Manager At Risk to carry out this $650 million project. It is responsible for building the school at a fixed cost. The town funded an additional $38 million contingency for it to address regulatory shortcomings, such as an SOC.
Turner is the largest domestic general contractor in the United States, with over $20 billion in revenue. It is one of the largest education market contractors. Our group feels Turner can be relied on to act as an honest broker, and Turner has been working closely with the project architects SMMA since it was hired in December 2024.
3. There are three particular ways by which Lexington defines itself and which unify us:
• We care deeply about education, our public schools, and the emotional welfare of all of our children.
• We are inclusive.
• We are environmentally responsible and invest considerable community resources to protect the future of the town and the planet.
Deciding how we can best move forward requires us to consider all these values. They not only represent who we are, but, as we know, they are literally the source of the town’s wealth.
4. The more points of view that participants in the site visit hear from the public, before and afterwards, the better for them to find common ground among themselves. Ultimately it is the job of the Select Board to determine how to best meet the needs of the community when cost and practicality must be weighed against community values.
Jim Williams
“Acceptance” of the appeal is a procedural step signifying that the petitioners submitted the appeal on time, completed the forms, and included ten valid citizen signatures. It does NOT imply or indicate that the appeal has any legal merit whatsoever.
Work is proceeding on the project, just not within the 100-foot buffer zone. The appeal provides no new information for the town, the Conservation Commission, and the state that they didn’t already consider. The alternative “plans” touted here require a $30 million+ structured parking garage or $100 million+ phased in place, which were already rejected during the process because they would cost taxpayers more than the approved project. The only thing the appeal seems to be doing is requiring the project team to redo schedule sequencing and paperwork, exposing the town and students to delay and escalation, and raising the cost of the project for everyone else in town. Not sure at all why the 12 people who signed this believe this is a better outcome for Lexington.
I don’t know “why the 12 people who signed this” signed this.
But I do know that the onsite design of a new high school outlined years ago by SMMA in the Schools’ own Master Plan — a design which protects the wetlands as Lexington, a “green” community, is ostensibly committed to do — was dismissed based on an invalid argument (“building on site would disrupt LHS students” [my words]): the new Hastings was built closer to functioning Hastings classrooms than building a new LHS onsite would be to LHS functioning classrooms.
Ignoring this better onsite design is a sufficient reason for our Conservation Commission to disapprove the Bloom design. The Commission did not do so, therefore the State’s acceptance of this appeal.
Like any resident or developer coming before the Conservation Commission, the Town must comply with the law and our Conservation Commission must treat the Town just like it treats any other applicant.
Thank you Jim, on behalf of many the Lexington citizens who have been silenced by the school mob.
I’m not understanding why you feel you were silenced. It’s my recollection that the School Building Committee held more than two years of public meetings during which residents were free to step up to the microphone and give their opinions about the proposed plans and location for the new high school. Additionally, residents could weigh in by writing letters to the SBC.
Do you feel that you were silenced because after careful consideration of all public comments and options the SBC didn’t choose your preferred option and the votes didn’t go your way? That’s not silencing, that’s democracy in action.
Avram, a lot of residents feel that their voices were not heard during the process. On public forums, people who asked questions or criticized the plans were chastised, attacked, and worse. The public meetings seemed to many of us a formality and performative, that the decisions were already determined.
No discussion here is going to change your mind, or mine. But I can tell you that many residents are grateful for what Jim Williams is doing, or trying to do.
Jim Williams and the “ten-citizen group” (with 12 actual signers*) should be commended for their commitment to exercising their democratic right to use every lever available to stop a project that they do not support. However, the broader community should be aware that this delay will cost the Town 2 to 5 million dollars (at a minimum), significantly risk the ability for students to enter the new school in the fall of 2029, and if the MassDEP rules in their favor (highly unlikely, but that is what this group wants) will not result in a small design change – it will result in a complete restart of the process adding years to the project and untold costs to the town.
Based on the discussion of this issue at the Permanent Building Committee (PBC) meeting on August 19, there are no grounds on which MassDEP will rule in the group’s favor. Lexington’s Conservation Commission has approved the plans and all relevant submissions to state agencies have been filed properly. The appeal was submitted to MassDEP on the last possible day (potentially to cause as much disruption as possible) and was accepted by MassDEP because all appeals submitted on time are accepted. As a result of this action, all construction activities on the site (except for a few far from the wetlands) have been stopped waiting for the results of the appeal.
Here, it’s important to note that this project is very tightly scheduled to allow students to enter the new building in the fall of 2029. If nothing else goes wrong, a couple week delay is manageable; however, this appeal will not be resolved in a couple of weeks. At a walkthrough of the project on August 27, the MassDEP representative said the fastest possible review is two weeks, but this is a large project and will take longer – potentially much longer, we do not know.
So, what are the implications of this delay (as described by the design/construction team at the PBC meeting):
1. Appeal Resolved by September 1:
• Delay Days: 15
• Substantial Completion Date: July 6, 2029 – enough time for students to enter in September 2029
• Potential Cost Exposure: $1 million to $2.5 million**
• Summary: There is no way that MassDEP will meet this date. The only way to limit the cost to town residents to $1 million to $2.5 million is if the proponents ask MassDEP to stop the appeal process. If they did, MassDEP would immediately stop their review and construction could begin. We could thank the proponents for their efforts and only lose about ~$2 million of unbudgeted money that will have to come from the Town’s general fund.
**These costs are associated with escalation, resequencing, schedule compressing, premium time, and shifting more work into winter months.
2. Appeal Resolved by October 1:
• Delay Days: 46
• Substantial Completion Date: August 6, 2029 – if there are no other delays students might be able to enter in September 2029
• Potential Cost Exposure: $2.5 million to $5 million
• Summary: MassDEP could have a ruling completed within this time period, creating two scenarios:
1. MassDEP rules against the appeal and construction resumes. If so, the proponents exercise in democracy will only cost the town up to $5 million and with some very hard work by Town staff and the design/construction teams, we might get students in seats in September 2029 (with a bit of luck).
2. MassDEP rules for the proponents. As stated above, there are no clear grounds for this scenario, but to provide complete description of the scenarios . . . if this happens all work stops, the Town gets back in line with the state’s MSBA process to restart the design effort started several years ago, the Town will also need to initiate a project to make the current buildings usable until a new MSBA project is awarded and a new design is created (Note: since the current design was approved by MSBA there is no opportunity to make changes – we have to start again). Such a scenario would set the project back years, cost many millions of dollars to update the current building to current standards, and the construction escalation costs for a LHS building would result in a total cost that would dwarf the current $659 million budget.
3. Appeal Resolved by November 1:
• Delay Days: 77
• Substantial Completion Date: September 6, 2029 – students would not enter the new LHS in September 2029, the team might be able to move students during winter break, but moving during the school year creates many new complexities.
• Potential Cost Exposure: $17.6 million (we wouldn’t be able to transition some furnishings and IT from the old buildings to the new – everything would have to be new)
• Summary: Again, we have two scenarios. The “start from scratch” scenario is the same as what was described above. If MassDEP rules against the proponents, in addition to the $17.6 million in direct costs, this would also delay demolition of the existing buildings and construction of the athletic fields by a year or more – the fields would not be fully usable until 2032.
The bottom line is that there is no scenario where the town benefits because of this appeal. The “sufficient consideration” that the proponents are seeking has been performed. This delay will only cost the town money that is outside the project budget (up to $17.6 million if MassDEP rules against the proponents, and far, far more if they rule in the proponent’s favor, however unlikely). One PBC member estimated that the delay is costing the town $90,000 per day.
Town residents voted decisively (62%) last December in support of the debt exclusion to move this project forward – we knew it was expensive, but it was needed and after several years of meetings and the consideration of 18 different building concepts (including those preferred by the proponents), this project is what we voted for. The proponents have clearly expressed their displeasure with the project. They now have the opportunity to save the town millions of dollars by rescinding their appeal. By stopping the MassDEP appeal now, they will be able to walk away from this effort with their heads held high. Not only will they have clearly made their point to the community, but they will also save the town millions of dollars and help to ensure that our students enter a new high school that meets their educational needs as scheduled in September 2029. Please join me in encouraging the proponents to make this courageous move.
Best regards,
Todd Rhodes
*Petition signers:
Alan Seferian, James B. Williams, Jean B. Williams, Catherine G. White, Douglas White, Shailesh Chandra, Shubhra Chandra, Cheryl A. King, Thomas King, Philip L. Cunningham, Marianne M. Mckenna, Olga P. Guttag.