Lexington advances high‑school project after town meeting rejects delay petition

A special town meeting in Lexington on Nov. 13 heard a comprehensive update on the Lexington High School (LHS) project and rejected a citizen petition that would have asked the Massachusetts School Building Authority to split funding into two phases.

Julie Hackett, superintendent of Lexington Public Schools, presented the school building committee's update and said the 75‑year‑old high school is “in tough shape,” citing system failures and severe overcrowding. Hackett said external consultants estimate $250 million to $300 million to address critical systems alone and that the town’s partnership with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is what made a major renewal project feasible. She told town meeting members the MSBA process requires adherence to square‑footage guidelines, modules and timeline milestones and that Lexington’s formal invitation to the MSBA followed multiple prior statements of interest.

The School Building Committee (SBC) described two massing approaches: the “Bloom” option (new construction on existing fields, shorter schedule and lower cost but with Article 97 land implications) and the “Weave” option (phased replacement on the existing campus, which is more expensive, disruptive and requires modular swing space). The SBC and school committee recommended the Bloom option and emphasized contingency measures such as converting central‑office square footage to classrooms if enrollment increases.

The most contested item was a citizen petition brought by Peter Kelly (Article 8) urging the town to request the MSBA to fund the LHS project in two phases: an initial, smaller building to address overcrowding and a later second phase after enrollment changes from recent MBTA‑community zoning are clearer. Kelly argued the town should “step back” and allow more community conversation and suggested a smaller phase could be delivered more quickly and at lower risk to taxpayers.

Opponents — including the select board, the capital expenditures committee and the appropriation committee — warned that a phased approach would likely increase total project cost, risk the town’s estimated $100 million MSBA grant and prolong substandard conditions for students. The capital expenditures committee presented an analysis arguing the two‑phase proposal could add $100 million to $150 million in additional expense and might jeopardize MSBA reimbursement.

After extensive debate and public comment for and against, the town recorded the vote on the citizen petition: 11 in favor, 157 opposed and 8 abstaining; the petition failed.

What the vote means: The failure of Article 8 cleared the way for the SBC to continue on the schedule and path it had set: move the preferred schematic into MSBA review and schematic design with a target move‑in date in the 2030 timeframe. SBC members reiterated that the chosen Bloom option includes design features intended to preserve key field uses where possible, and that MSBA partnership is expected to support a substantial portion of the project.

Context and concerns raised: Supporters of the petition cited long‑term fiscal risk, possible enrollment changes driven by new zoning and open‑space impacts of building on fields protected under Article 97. Opponents stressed student safety, ADA compliance and the escalating cost of delaying construction. Multiple town meeting members said they worried that delaying would increase costs and extend the time students must attend in buildings rated “F” by some reports.

Next steps: The SBC will move forward with MSBA schematic design and cost estimating, with the MSBA and town staff continuing public engagement and cost reviews over the coming year. Any changes that would materially alter funding or scope will return to town meeting for specific appropriations.