We have no easy choices regarding the high school, so we need to carefully consider the pros and cons of each option while balancing the needs of students and other citizens. I am going to speak in round numbers to respect the fact we do not yet have precise numbers.

The town needs to take care of the high school. It is, and has long been very overcrowded, and its major systems are well beyond end-of-life and subject to failure. Failure and thus replacement of any of the major systems will trigger significant code upgrades and thus a full renovation of the high school. It needs to be dealt with in the immediate future. The town has been planning for many years for a new high school, and the town has saved for this since 2013 via the Capital Stabilization Fund, with more than $42M saved with an additional $6.5M expected to be added at this spring’s Annual Town Meeting.

Given the state of the current high school the option of doing nothing is not a practical option. We have three practical options to consider: (1) renovate the old high school, (2) build in-place by renovating the old high school and adding one or more additional buildings using a phase approach, or (3) build one independent building (“Bloom”), and relocate some of the existing fields. We could renovate the old high school (option 1) and live with the overcrowding and other inadequacies, but that seems a poor choice given the rough estimate of a $300M cost to Lexington taxpayers, with no state help, and what little we get for that cost.

Regarding option 2, several phased options were carefully analyzed, and each would cost the Lexington taxpayers approximately $570M (after MSBA and energy grants), and bring space on much more slowly than building in one phase on the fields. Some folks are arguing for a version (so called “Thrive”) of phased in place with an indefinite pause between phases. Thrive was determined to have a ballpark $700M cost to the Lexington taxpayers due to losing the $100M of MSBA support and other project inefficiencies, and take even longer than the other phased options. The reasons for this were laid out by Mike Cronin, Director of Public Facilities who has decades of experience over nine school projects.

If we go with Bloom (option 3), the cost to the Lexington taxpayer is on the order of $520M (after state support and significant energy rebates), and the new building will be ready about 2 years earlier than any of the phased approaches (taking down the old school and building playing fields will take additional time for a total project time of 4.5 years). The students will also undergo significantly less disruption as an important additional benefit – rather than classes rotating through a complex of portable classrooms for years as various areas are renovated, they move from the old school to the new in one go, just as we have done very successfully with our elementary school projects.

Beyond cost, some are worried about student enrollment. The base Bloom plan is designed for a base enrollment of about 2,400 students, our current enrollment, but with planned capacity enhancements for approximately 850 additional students for a total of approximately 3,250. Of that, nearly 600 will be built ready to go if needed, while about 250 would require additional build-out. Over the last several years the elementary population has dropped by approximately 100 students in each grade due to smaller family sizes and fewer people having families, a demographic shift seen across the country. So, from existing housing we can expect a high school population of roughly 2,000 in several years. New housing, and thus additional students, will be arriving to add to that figure in that timeframe. Apartments, current plans have a majority being one-bedroom, will generate fewer students than the stand-alone houses that currently dominate our housing stock. No credible predictions show an increase large enough to overwhelm the Bloom design. A phased approach, that costs more, is more disruptive, comes on line later, is not needed.

In summary, the Bloom design is our least expensive and least disruptive option, while providing all the flexibility good planning demands.

We would all love to have less expensive options that provide the needed educational space, cafeteria, library, and athletic facilities. I totally get this is a huge expense. But the options are, in taxpayer dollars, roughly, $300M for far too little, $520M for the right sized school as soon as possible, or something that costs more (some phased options far more) and takes longer.

The cost is hard to swallow, but after analyzing the cost, schedule, and delivery of appropriate educational space, I support going forward with the Bloom option.