MSBA – Massachusetts School Building Authority

RFS – Request for Services

SOI – Statement of Interest

OPM – Owners Project Manager

DSP – Designer Selection Panel

MBE – Minority owned Business Enterprises

WBE – Women Owned Businesses

MCPPO – Massachusetts Certified Public Purchasing Official

PDP – Preliminary Design Program

PSR – Preferred Schematic Report

SBC – School Building Committee

SC – School Committee

PSBA – Project Scope and Budget Agreement

PFA – Project Funding Agreement

GMP – Guaranteed Maximum Price

BRR – Budget Revision Request

CO – Change Order

SOV – Schedule of Values

DCAMM – Division of Capital Asset Management & Maintenance

LEED – Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Where can I find information, including project updates?

LHS Building Project website

Updates are periodically featured in bi-weekly superintendent reports, which are presented at School Committee meetings (Tuesdays) and then emailed to the LPS community on the following Friday. Previous reports can be accessed here.

Additional updates are presented during School Committee meetings (you can view agendas here, sign up to receive agendas here, and search previous reports/publications here)

How long is the project expected to take?

While every building project has unique aspects that can drive the project timeline, the typical high school project takes 5-6 years, start to finish.

What Is the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA)?

The Massachusetts School Building Authority ("MSBA") is a quasi-independent government authority created to reform the process of funding capital improvement projects in the Commonwealth’s public schools. The MSBA strives to work with local communities to create affordable, sustainable, and energy-efficient schools across Massachusetts. The Legislature created the MSBA in 2004 to replace the former school building assistance program administered by the Department of Education (now the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education).

The MSBA, which has a dedicated revenue stream of one penny of the state’s 6.25-percent sales tax, is collaborating with municipalities to equitably invest in finding the right-sized, most fiscally responsible, and educationally appropriate solutions to create safe, sound, and sustainable learning environments. The MSBA has made more than $16 billion in reimbursements to cities, towns, and regional school districts for school construction projects. Instead of waiting years for reimbursement, districts now receive payments from the MSBA as costs are incurred, usually within 15 days of submitting a request through the MSBA’s online Pro-Pay System.

Where are we in the MSBA process and how do I learn more?

Lexington is currently in the Feasibility Phase. To learn more about the MSBA modules, click here.

How much is the project expected to cost and how will it be funded?

A project to either replace or renovate will be one of the most expensive projects ever undertaken by the Town of Lexington. The cost of construction continues to skyrocket, with labor shortages and supply chain issues further complicating matters. The Master Planning Advisory Committee (MPC) strongly endorses the plan to increase the size of the facility by replacing it with a new build or a comprehensive renovation with additions. The MPC recognizes that it would be highly advantageous to team with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) to receive both planning and financial assistance from them. The MPC further recommends low-cost non-permanent structures (e.g., portables and tents) as stop-gap measures to temporarily meet the critical needs for additional space at Lexington High School.

A capital project of this magnitude requires a substantial financial commitment, reinforcing the Advisory Committee’s recommendation that we continue to explore the possibility of a partnership with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). The actual price of the project remains to be seen, but several smaller high school construction projects that are currently under completion are in the $400 million range. Lexington’s effective reimbursement rate (i.e., the actual grant-funded percentage from the MSBA after ineligible costs) is estimated at approximately 25%. Given the anticipated costs, the effective reimbursement rate from the MSBA would be a significant contribution to the overall costs of a new or renovated high school. If the MSBA invites us into the capital pipeline and voters support a new or renovated high school, the State would fund approximately a quarter of the school construction/renovation project, and the remaining three-quarters of the funding would be assumed by Lexington taxpayers.

The MSBA has a dedicated funding stream that is derived from one penny of the State’s 6.25% sales tax. If the MSBA invites Lexington into its “capital pipeline,” a feasibility study determines whether to proceed with a project to replace or renovate and expand the high school. Since the MSBA’s support is not guaranteed, MPC discussions often centered around the need for a Plan A for Lexington High School, as well as a Plan B. If a project is not funded by the MSBA, the next step would be to analyze the costs to Lexington of an MSBA-supported project at some estimated date in the future (Plan A) versus that of proceeding immediately without support from the MSBA (Plan B). The degree of MSBA support, the effects of construction cost escalation, the inherent value received from MSBA expertise, and the constraints that apply to an MSBA supported project would all need to be taken into account.

Who is on the School Building Committee? What does this group do?

The School Building Committee is a group of 14 individuals who will play a key role in the work for funding and designing a new or renovated high school. The members are:

Kathleen M. Lenihan, Chair of the School Building Committee, School Committee

Michael Cronin, Vice Chair of the School Building Committee, Facilities Director

Mark Barrett, Public Facilities Project Manager

Charles Favazzo Jr., Permanent Building Committee

Julie Hackett, Superintendent of Schools

Jonathan A. Himmel, Permanent Building Committee Chair

Carolyn Kosnoff, Finance Assistant Town Manager

Charles W. Lamb, Capital Expenditures Committee

Alan Mayer Levine, Appropriation Committee

Joseph N. Pato, Select Board

James Malloy, Town Manager

Hsing Min Sha, Community Representative

Kseniya Slavsky, Community Representative

Andrew Stephens, Lexington High School Principal

Dan Voss, Sustainable Lexington

The formation of a School Building Committee is a requirement of the MSBA during the Eligibility Period. We are still in Module 1: Eligibility. The SBC is a collaborative body that works directly with the Owner's Project Manager (OPM) and Architect to oversee the design of the building, provide input, assist in managing the requirements of the MSBA modules, and take required MSBA votes.

All SBC meetings are videotaped for the public and minutes are taken. To view all agendas, minutes, and recordings, please click here.

How has the community been engaged in the process?

Lexington is a highly engaged community, and there has been significant community outreach and participation in plans for a new Lexington High School in the past several years. In addition to ongoing updates to our school community during School Committee meetings, we have engaged in outreach to our PTOs and PTAs throughout the past several years. Plans are in the works for significantly more outreach as the project progresses.

2017 - 2018: We invited students, staff, parents, and community members to participate in a series of visioning exercises designed to help us rethink teaching and learning at Lexington High School and think about the best way to configure a new building. We asked participants to describe what students, educators, community members, and business owners would be doing in our schools 20 years from now. A new vision of teaching and learning began to emerge, along with implications for the design of a new high school (see 2017 LHS Visioning).

2018 - 2019: We built upon the community’s efforts over the past several years and engaged in many additional community conversations and strategic planning/visioning exercises to create a strategic plan for our district (see LPS Strategic Plan Timeline and 2019 LPS Strategic Plan).

In that same year (2018 - 2019) the School Committee formed a Master Planning Advisory Committee (MPC) comprising various Town and community leaders, including members of the Select Board, Recreation, School Committee, and liaisons from the Planning Board and the Capital Expenditures Committee. Parents, local architects and sustainability experts also serve on the MPC, along with, the Director of Public Facilities, the Director of Data and Strategy, and the Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations. The Superintendent of Schools oversees the MPC who provided input into the LPS Master Plan, a Master Planning Compendium, and the LHS Statement of Interest. A community vision for a new high school has emerged as a result of these ongoing, multi-year conversations in various groups. We also developed the LPS Master Facilities Plan Website to keep the community engaged and informed.

2019 - 2022: We continue our work with the Master Planning Advisory Committee that includes a focus on Lexington High School. The master planning process has been fluid, thought provoking, and insightful. There is a clear understanding and agreement that planning is essential to stay ahead of enrollment shifts, aging facilities, capital improvements, sustainable goals, and possible town acquisitions. Student enrollment plays a significant factor in the decision-making process. The Master Planning Advisory Committee (MPAC) developed a series of strategies depending on enrollment shifts and the impact they have on the school facilities. It was agreed the Master Plan should be reviewed annually to ensure enrollment projections are on target and to make modifications to the plan as required due to enrollment, educational program shifts, aging facilities, and capital improvement requirements. This section will focus on the multitude of strategies that have been suggested and discussed as part of the master planning process. The strategies represent all possible options that have been discussed, which were then weighed with the educational goals, physical building constraints, and appropriateness of each of the strategies.

In the 2021-2022 school year, the Town Manager established a High School and Center Recreation Area Working Group that he co-planned with the Superintendent. Lexington High School is adjacent to the Center Recreation Complex that includes several playing fields (natural grass and one synthetic). Several of these fields include athletic lighting, a new six (6) lane track, an outdoor aquatics facility with four pools, two (2) full-size and three (3) half-size basketball courts, ten (10) tennis and four (4) pickleball courts, all of which are overseen by the Recreation Department. Additionally, there are shade shelters, a skatepark and seasonal restrooms at the Park. The Outdoor Recreation Facilities are permitted to the Lexington Public Schools for physical education, health, and wellness classes, and these facilities also support the interscholastic athletic programs of both the middle and high school programs. The indoor track in the LHS Field House is used by the community and located near the Center Recreation Complex, and it recently received upgrades due to safety concerns. In addition, the community made a significant $3.2 million investment at the Center Recreation Complex.

In an effort to protect the Town’s investments and to ensure Article 97 compliance, the Town Manager organized a High School and Center Recreation Area Working Group to address land swap issues and site concerns. The Director of Public Facilities developed and shared a plan for siting the building on the existing parcel without disrupting the Town’s investments in the Center Recreation Complex and track. The High School and Center Recreation Area Working Group is in general agreement that the site of the new high school should be built on the same side of the property as the existing high school and that the boundary of construction be where the Vine Brook bisects the Center Recreation Complex. We also agree that efforts should be made to have as little impact on the existing outdoor recreation facilities in this area as possible (other than as a laydown area for construction). Finally, there is a commitment to build new/replacement outdoor recreation facilities for any fields that are temporarily or permanently displaced.

These issues will be addressed by the School Building Committee, which will convene in September. The general idea is for students to remain in the current LHS while the new building is being constructed. When the new LHS is complete, the old building will be torn down and that site will be converted into outdoor recreation facilities/athletic fields that will be managed and operated by the Recreation Department and permitted to the high school.

Why do we need a new or renovated high school?

In 2018, the School Committee developed a Master Planning Advisory Committee (MPC) and this charge: (1) assess current capacity findings and identify options to align future school capacities with enrollment projections and educational program requirements; (2) develop recommendations for addressing capacity, including costs and timelines; and (3) prepare a final report and recommendations for the School Committee. The School Committee approved the LPS Master Plan and Master Planning Compendium at their May 25, 2021 meeting.

The MPC engaged in a collaborative process that took several years and lots of hard work. They identified Lexington High School as the most critical priority of any LPS school building project in the next ten years. For more background, please review the links below. MPAC helped develop, including the LPS Master Facilities Plan and the LPS Master Planning Compendium.

LPS Facilities Master Plan - 451 page document developed in collaboration with the Master Planning Advisory Committee and prepared by DiNisco Design

LPS Master Planning Compendium - 40 page document developed in collaboration with the Master Planning Advisory Committee and co-authored by the Superintendent of Schools and Director of Planning and Assessments

How crowded is Lexington High School?

The significant overcrowding at Lexington High School creates a serious challenge for our community. Nearly 100% of existing classrooms are undersized; 100% of science rooms do not meet the MSBA standard of 850 square feet, and approximately 30% of general education classrooms do not meet the recommended square footage guidelines. Common areas such as cafeterias and hallways are inadequate for their intended functions. Teaching and learning are impacted on a daily basis, and overcrowding creates safety hazards, such as congested hallways. Educators are forced to search for space to teach and collaborate, and LHS is in a constant state of retrofitting classrooms to ensure all students have access to fundamental learning experiences.

LHS lacks adequate space for invaluable learning experiences in areas such as the science labs and the performing arts. Many students must eat lunches in hallways, as there is not enough seating in the dining areas to accommodate all students. Hallway spaces are already congested with mobility equipment due to inadequate storage and students trying to complete schoolwork, creating additional health and safety concerns. Many campus doors have been locked in an effort to tighten security; however, this means there are fewer viable routes to move from one building to another, which further exacerbates overcrowding in the hallway.

Overcrowding also impacts our ability to implement an innovative schedule that would enable LHS to meet the 990-hour time-on-learning requirement. An innovative schedule would require approximately 10% more space at LHS than does the current antiquated 8-period schedule that negatively impacts time-on-learning. Moreover, the impact of overcrowding has resulted in inadequate space for students with disabilities in the LABBB Collaborative Program and the Intensive Learning Program (ILP), as well as a shortage of space for English Language Learners (ELLs). Due to space limitations, the administration is unable to create inclusive, in-district programs for students with disabilities who should be educated with their peers whenever possible.

In the 2008 and 2020 New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) Accreditation Reports, LHS earned a rating of “Does Not Meet the Standard” due to the poor condition of the facility. The accreditation team reported in 2020: “Enrollment has outpaced the addition of buildings, creating significant space issues in classrooms, the cafeteria, and other facilities.”

A significant and steady uptick in enrollment has led to an increase of over 1,000 students in the district in the past ten years. The school district has consistently experienced overcrowding in all of the elementary, middle, and high school grades, but nowhere is the overcrowding felt more intensely than at Lexington High School (LHS). Analysis of enrollment data indicates that by the year 2024-2025, the LHS projected enrollment could reach roughly 2500+ students and could continue at or near that level for the foreseeable future. Even if enrollment does not reach 2,500+ students, any measurable increase puts additional pressure on the planned operating capacity for large core spaces, such as the cafeteria and lunchroom spaces, as well as the instructional spaces. The core spaces were designed for 1,850 students, and the current high school enrollment would need to decline by approximately 450 students for the core spaces to be within the planned operating capacity. Even in these unpredictable times, such a scenario seems unlikely.

In the short term, what strategies will we use to accommodate the current enrollment and maintain the building?

It can be difficult to understand the types of pressures we face due to overcrowding. While examples exist for every department, one specific example may help put things into perspective. Overcrowding and the poor condition of the LHS facility necessitates repeated short-term capital planning exercises that are burdensome, costly, and not conducive to excellence in teaching and learning. While we have undertaken many complex planning exercises in order to deliver the curriculum, the efforts recently undertaken to ensure that all students can participate in Science are illustrative of the challenges we face. Prior to the pandemic, two options were considered (1) implement alternative scheduling and course sequence changes to accommodate increasing enrollment; or (2) build two additional Science Labs at a cost of $1.1 million. A request for funding was submitted and approved at the 2019 Fall Special Town Meeting.

In light of the future new or renovated high school, the request was rescinded, and a decision was made to implement a short-term plan for a fraction of the costs. The complex, less-than-ideal short-term plan temporarily ensures that LHS students have access to Science Labs. The plan did not cost the $1.1 million originally anticipated; however, there were approximately $150,000 in associated costs related to the relocation, equipment, chemical fume hood and ventilation, eyewash, minor plumbing upgrades, and furniture. These temporary measures add up and do not adequately address the students.

A series of complex steps had to be implemented to avoid the $1.1 million Science Lab construction project. The LHS short-term space reconfiguration plan commenced in 2019-2020. In order to ensure that students had access to Science Labs, we added one Biology Room, which necessitated a series of moves.

Earth Science (Room 313) becomes the 6th Biology classroom;

Physics (Room 303) becomes Earth Science (from 313);

Room 418 becomes Physics Room (from 303);

Materials from Room 418 are moved to first-floor storage; and

Room 418 offices are shifted to Rooms 413, 401, 300, and 301.

In 2020-2021, one Chemistry Room was added, necessitating the following additional changes:

Retrofit Room 420 (Biology) to be a Chemistry room;

Relocate Biology from Room 420 to Room 315 Earth Science;

Relocate Earth Science (Room 315) to 301 (Staff/Academic Support);

Relocate Resource Room (309);

Relocate Staff Room, Academic Support, and offices to Room 309.

LHS regularly engages in these kinds of space reconfiguration exercises. If the high school enrollment continues to increase per current projections, accommodations will be necessary for a population of 2,500+ students. As a school community, we are sure to be faced with many more difficult choices in the foreseeable future.

Our vision for site placement: where will the proposed school be located?

Lexington High School currently is adjacent to the Center Recreation Complex that includes several natural grass and one synthetic athletic fields, several including athletic lighting, a new 6 lane track, an outdoor aquatics facility with four pools, two full sized/3 half size basketball courts, 10 tennis and 4 pickleball courts, all of which are overseen by the Recreation Department. Additionally, there are shade shelters, a skatepark and seasonal restrooms at the Park. The Outdoor Recreation Facilities are permitted to the Lexington Public Schools for Physical Education classes, Health & Wellness and supports the interscholastic athletic programs of both the middle and high school programs. The indoor track in the LHS Field House that is used by the community and located near the Center Recreation Complex recently received upgrades due to safety concerns. In addition, the community made a significant ($1 million) *This project was a $3.2 million project for track, field, athletic lights, ADA connectivity. investment at the Center Recreation Complex.

In an effort to protect the Town’s investments and to ensure Article 97 compliance, the Town Manager organized an Article 97 Working Group to address land swap issues and site concerns. The Director of Public Facilities developed and shared a plan for siting the building (on the existing parcel?) without disrupting the Town’s investments in the Center Recreation Complex and track. The Article 97 Working Group is in general agreement that the site of the new high school should be built on the same side of the property as the existing high school and that the boundary of construction be where the Vine Brook bisects the Center Recreation Complex. We also agree that efforts should be made to have as little impact on the existing outdoor recreation facilities in this area as possible (other than as a laydown area for construction). Finally, there is a commitment to build new/replacement outdoor recreation facilities for any fields that are temporarily or permanently displaced.

These issues will be addressed by the School Building Committee. The general idea is for students to remain in the old (current) LHS while the new building is being constructed. When the new building is complete, the old building will be torn down and that site will be converted into outdoor recreation facilities/athletic fields that will be managed and operated by the Recreation Department and permitted to the high school.

What are the sustainability goals for the building?

Joint discussions have been had with the SBC, PBC, & Sustainable Lexington to identify goals for sustainability elements of the building. This is a requirement per the Town of Lexington’s Integrated Design Policy. At this joint discussion the PBC was able to make a recommendation to the SBC on 9/14/23 and ultimately the SBC agreed with recommendation, with slight modification and voted the following:

- Level 3 for majority of building.

- Level 2 not including food prep requirement. This will be applied to select areas of the building, such as the Field

house/Gym (plan for attaching portable generator for cooking).

- Energy Target: EUI=25 kBTU/sf/yr or 30% better than 90.1-2019 whichever is lower

- NZE: Evaluate and present options. Priority is to maximize renewables.

- Battery Storage: Evaluate and present options. Likely required for solar.

- EV Charging ties into renewable and battery discussion

- From recent projects, and requirements in the updated IBDCP (Integrated Design Policy and Construction Policy), it is very likely that the building would achieve LEED Gold with aspirations for Platinum.