Building “Thrive,” an alternative for the new Lexington High School proposed by resident group LHS4All, could cost up to $867 million, according to a memo sent by superintendent of Lexington Public Schools Julie Hackett to the school community on Feb. 26.
That could be over $300 million more than Bloom, the name of the design Lexington is pursuing for the new high school.
Supporters of Thrive advocate for a two-staged plan that would allow the town time to get a better sense of the impact of incoming MBTA Communities Act housing on enrollment.
One of the main reasons LHS4All created the plan is because the group believed the construction of Bloom would be too expensive, among other critiques.
If the estimate cited in Hackett’s memo is accurate, Bloom would actually be less expensive than Thrive.
The School Building Committee, working with Dore & Wittier, SMMA, and two independent estimators, pegged the cost of Bloom at approximately $662 million. After a reimbursement from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, which is currently estimated at $100 million, the total cost would be $552 million.
The cost estimate for Thrive was prepared by SMMA, the architecture firm, together with Turner Construction, Lexington’s newly chosen construction manager for the high school. It was not prepared in conjunction with the LHS4All group.
One of the main reasons why Thrive’s price tag is higher than Bloom’s is that the estimates assume that Thrive would not receive the $100 million reimbursement. That’s because it was never submitted to be a part of the MSBA’s program like Bloom was. Even if Thrive were submitted, it could take several years for the Authority to review it. It likely wouldn’t receive funding because it does not address Lexington’s educational program which was approved by the town and MSBA.
In addition to the price tag, SMMA argued that Thrive is an inferior option because it would cause more disruption to students and staff, could take until 2035 to complete, and does not include construction of a central office space, among other downsides.
In her memo, Hackett also noted that the MSBA Board of Directors approved the School Building Committee’s submission of Bloom’s preferred schematic report. Next, the SBC will work with SMMA to create a schematic design of Bloom, which will provide more detail than the designs the Committee has considered thus far.
I am sorry that I was not interviewed or the above article as it reports on our original staged proposal. Fortunately, those of us looking for a better, faster and less expensive solution have moved way past Thrive which was presented by Peter Kelley at the Special Town Meeting (STM) in the fall. I would like to know how much money was wasted on getting this dated useless detailed estimate.
Based on the feedback from the STM and others, since November I have been working on addressing all of the flaws that the Thrive plan had. I have posted on the Lexington List a VERY detailed description of a complicated plan which addresses the identified deficiencies of the Thrive proposal. I am sorry that many list members, including Joe Pato, commented on my new plan without ever reading it. I will post this on the LHS4ALL.com website in the next couple of days and include a Q&A section. So if you have questions, please contact me by email.
While working on the plan I realized that a very important question was never asked by SBC when developing their new LHS plan. This question is “What is the site capacity of the LHS campus if we use that land for a renewed LHS and what is the site capacity if Bloom is built?” This important question was never asked because no long-range planning that took into account the impact of the new MSBA rezoning on LPS was ever done by school committee or administration. SBC looked only at LHS, not considering a design fitting within the context of all future LPS needs.
Site capacity is important because LPS does not have any good new school building sites, and we could have a very large influx of students into all of our schools. If we do get a lot of students, then using the LHS campus for a renewed school will allow us educate over 1,000 more students on that site than Bloom will.
I am NOT advocating for 4,400 student high school. Using the strategy Dr. Hackett described, the 4,400 students could be divided into a 3,300 student high school in Gr. 10-12 and a freshman building with 1,100 students. Other realignments of grades are possible if needed, but we must have the real estate where to put new needed buildings. The site of LHS campus is such a site!
I hope that the Observer will work with me on publishing my STAGED DESIGN Project to make it more accessible to the public. I am also currently working on incorporating comments about my plan into the Yes4Lex “10 Myth …” page.
I finally figured a way to get a Staged Design Project that will retain the MSBA reimbursement, have Stage 1 cost less, relieve academic overcrowding sooner than Bloom and get us a completely renewed right-sized LHS by 2032 (no later 2033).
Rather than everyone digging in their heals, let’s look for a LHS project that many more voters can support. A nasty debt exclusion battle between YES and NO proponents and winning by 50%+1 vote (regardless for which side) will irreparably hurt or Town. We can do better!
After reading Olga Guttag’s letter to the editor, I find myself scratching my head. Why would Ms. Guttag expect to be interviewed by the Observer and why would she expect the Observer to work with her (as opposed to any other resident)? As far as I know, Ms. Guttag is not acting in an official capacity for the town, she is just another resident who has a strong opinion about the design of the new high school. She is not the only resident with a strong opinion on this topic, nor is she the only resident to have put forth their ideas on the Lexington List for review and discussion.
I have made a public records request for the contract with Turner Construction. I’d like to see how much taxpayer money was spent for political purposes. I also would like to examine the scope of work to see how leading it is. I hope the Observer will consider publishing this.
This article and the memo on which it is based seem partisan and politically-motivated, written by the superintendent and now published by the Observer in order to influence voters in one direction.