Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-13-Superintendent LHS-rept^` LEXINGTON IID Il IL��. II CS C II II0 0 1.- S SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT ON ARTICLE 7 AND ARTICLE 8 JULIE L. HACKETT, ED.D. NOVEMBER 11, 2024 ARTICLE 7—APPROPRIATE FOR SCHEMATIC DESIGN FUNDS - HARRINGTON ATHLETIC FIELDS To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money for survey, design, and engineering services for construction of Athletic fields at the Harrington School, and all costs incidental or related thereto; and determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, including enterprise funds 2 and the Community Preservation Fund, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by the Select Board) DESCRIPTION: This is a funding request for schematic design services for future construction of the Harrington fields, which is anticipated to be a FY2026 Capital Request. The primary impetus for moving the Central Administration out of the Old Harrington was to address the community's 2,000+ hours of unmet need for playing fields. This plan, included in the Educational Plan the School Committee unanimously approved and submitted to the Massachusetts School Building Authority, solves many issues. 1. It addresses the unmet need for more playing fields in Town for Recreation and Athletics, which a building project will exacerbate. 2. It provides an opportunity to redirect some of the $20M needed in systems upgrades for Old Harrington to the new high school, alleviating student enrollment pressures at LHS should the impact of the zoning bylaw changes be greater than anticipated. 3. If the space is not needed to alleviate overcrowding for students, then the Central Office will be relocated from 173 Bedford Street to Lexington High School. 4. It is a "quid pro quo" for the Recreation Committee and a symbolic acknowledgment of what they will give up if the new high school is built on existing fields. 2,000+ HOURS OF UNMET NEEDS. Recreation indicates approximately 2,000 hours per year of unmet recreation needs in the Town. Recreation proactively addresses anticipated needs so that other athletic fields will be fully available during the anticipated high school construction phase. MINIMIZES POST -PANDEMIC DISRUPTIONS FOR STUDENT ATHLETES. Many athletic fields in the Center Recreation Complex/LHS area will not be usable when a new or renovated high school is constructed. We see the new arrangement as a win-win for our community. The new playing fields would enable our student -athletes and athletes from the wider community to be less impacted by playing time disruptions during a school construction project. The pandemic significantly interrupted athletic opportunities for our students, and we aim to minimize further disruptions during the school construction process. OLD HARRINGTON IS AN `F' BUILDING. Additionally, demolishing the current Central Office building would obviate the need to upgrade systems, including the roof, windows, flooring replacements, HVAC upgrades, and other repairs. The Town's 20 -Year Capital Plan rates the current Central Office building an `F' and estimates that costs to upgrade the multiple deficient systems at $20M. The Town's 20 -Year Capital Plan rates the 173 Bedford St. building an `F.' The upgrades to the building that would enable it to temporarily accommodate the Central Office or other Town departments in the future would include an elevator, sprinklers, HVAC upgrades, etc. CENTRAL OFFICE SPACE UTILIZATION STUDY. Several planning meetings have occurred throughout the past two years, including meetings of the Master Planning Committee, the School Committee, and joint meetings of the Select Board and School Committee. LPS and the Department of Public Facilities conducted a Central Office Space Utilization Study, which has given us valuable insight into the amount of space needed for CO now and in the future. An initial meeting was held in September 2022 with architects from DRA and LPS and DPF administrators. The purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss who occupied the building at 146 Maple Street and how much square footage would be needed should the Central Office move to 173 Bedford Street and/or a new Lexington High School (or elsewhere). The staff positions that need to be part of the Central Office and those who might relocate elsewhere in the district were identified. The architects then conducted a thorough walk-through of the Central Office building, examining the space available to employees in the workplace. A second meeting was held with the architects in October 2022 to review their recommended space -related needs and the appropriate square footage for CO employees. The architects then used the information from these discussions to refine the details of their space utilization study. The Old Harrington School's Central Office building has a floor area of approximately 46,637 square feet, while 173 Bedford Street has a floor area of approximately 16,397 square feet. The current square footage of the Central Office is approximately twice the size of the space it requires and fits in the 173 Bedford Street building. OLD HARRINGTON LAND OWNERSHIP. Lexington's adoption of the MBTA zoning bylaw changes has sparked a renewed interest in land ownership at 146 Maple Street. While this issue is still under legal review, our preliminary research indicates that the land would remain in the School Committee's possession, as it is part of the new Harrington School site on file with the Massachusetts School Building Authority. 1. School committees typically oversee school buildings and the property included on the school site. Towns generally have oversight of recreational land, not on school grounds. 2. The new PK -5 Harrington Elementary School, located at 328 Lowell Street and 75,000 square feet, opened in 2005. Also in 2005, the LPS Central Offices, once housed at 1557 Massachusetts 2 Avenue, were relocated to 146 Maple Street. Every school district submits site maps for all schools that must remain on file with the Massachusetts School Building Authority. 3. To answer the question of oversight of school grounds, we researched the sites on file with the Massachusetts School Building Authority for Harrington School and the Central Office. We located the original Statement of Interest for the 2005 Harrington School construction project. The site map submitted to the MSBA identifies the land upon which the Central Office sits. We also reviewed the current Town GIS maps. The Harrington School and the Central Office appear in the same RLrcel. 4. A 2007 elementary school master plan study also included a discussion of the Central Office (see page 65 and beyond). An excerpt from this report indicates the "Old Harrington" (now CO) site appeared to remain under LPS control after the new Harrington was complete. Specifically, on page 65, "We restricted our consideration to buildings under the control of the Lexington Public Schools, specifically the "White House," the old Harrington School, and the Hastings School, which is recommended to come out of service as a school." 5. A later plan in 2009 discussed Central Office facilities plans further (on p. 61), but this was when the CO had already moved to the site. There is no mention of recreation needs or agreements that we could identify in either of these plans. 6. When children are removed from a school building, the school is no longer in operation. Voters approved the construction of a new Lexington Children's Place in December 2018. Once the new building was finalized, PK children who were once housed at CO and the new Harrington Elementary School were relocated to the new LCP. METCO and the Performing Arts programs still utilize CO today, but it has no day-to-day programming or uses otherwise. 7. We are in the process of verifying the status of the Central Office building at 146 Maple Street with the Massachusetts School Building Authority. We assume that when the PK program was moved to LCP, CO was no longer listed as a school with the MSBA. 8. Based on the information above, the land upon which the Central Office building sits is part of the new Harrington Elementary School site; therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that it will remain under the control of the School Committee. IN SUMMARY. The LPS Central Office building in the 46,000 -square -foot former Harrington School building at 146 Maple Street needs upgrades estimated to cost approximately $20 million. At the same time, the Recreation Department reports more than 2,000 hours of unmet need for playing fields in the 3 community, which a new building project will exacerbate. Many years ago, the community discussed possibly creating new playing fields on the 146 Maple Street site, but no formal plans were created. The community needs to increase the number of playing fields and benefits from this Article in many ways. ARTICLE 8—DELAY MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL BUILDING AUTHORITY (MSBA) FILING RESOLUTION To see if the town will vote a non-binding resolution to delay the MSBA filing and request a two part funding for Lexington's High School building project due to uncertain future enrollment from new housing as result of the recent MBTA multi -family rezoning. (Inserted by Peter Kelley and 99 other registered voters) DESCRIPTION: This resolution seeks Town Meeting support to delay the filing to the MSBA for the Lexington High School construction project from its current schedule. SCHOOL SAFETY 1. The petitioner's plan involves constructing a new building in the current World Language location, which has direct access from Waltham Street. The current building and the petitioner's proposed new one do not address the safety concerns that a new high school project will address. 2. Sadly, every district in the country must carefully consider school safety today. While Lexington is a safe community, our current school facilities leave us vulnerable. We need a building with controlled access, three layers of doors and lockable vestibules, clear sightlines, and lengthy driveways that limit direct access. 3. We submitted our first Statement of Interest to the MSBA five years ago. The MSBA requires applicants to identify their top priorities for submitting the SOI among eight choices. After much deliberation and debate, the Master Planning Advisory Committee identified the following priorities: a. The replacement or renovation of a building... in a condition seriously jeopardizing the health and safety of school children, where no alternative exists. b. Elimination of existing severe overcrowding. c. Prevention of the loss of accreditation. d. Prevention of severe overcrowding expected to result from increased enrollments. e. Replacement, renovation, or modernization of school facility systems, such as roofs, windows, boilers, heating, and ventilation systems, to increase energy conservation and decrease energy-related costs in a school facility. f. Replacement of or addition to obsolete buildings in order to provide for a full range of programs consistent with state and approved local requirements. 4. The Master Planning Advisory Committee identified the health and safety of school children as a top priority because the high school's open, California -style campus and buildings with direct access are not as secure as they will hopefully be one day soon with a new building. El EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS: The MSBA requires a school district to comprehensively research its current facility limitations and document unmet and desired educational needs. After a year-long collaborative drafting process with educators, students, and the community, the LHS Educational Plan was unanimously approved by the School Committee. The "Ed Plan" is a grant requirement, and it was successfully submitted to the MSBA and accepted in May 2024. Delays or partial facility improvements do not cover the educational needs specified in the Educational Plan. The current high school facilities are inadequate, subpar, and detrimental to our students' daily ability to achieve their full potential. 1. The Educational Plan was written with our most vulnerable students in mind. It addresses inclusive and interdisciplinary practices critical to meeting the complex needs of our learners, which the petitioner's plan does not address, 2. The Existing Conditions Report submitted in February 2024 notes partial compliance with the current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The greatest deficiencies in the existing school building are for students with disabilities. For example, some students may need respite from stimulus or have cognitive/physical challenges but struggle due to facility limitations. Please see this LexObserver article by an LHS student. 3. Our Educational Plan clarified that the current facility's limitations hinder 21st -century educational practices and innovations, which are necessary today and in the future. The significant deficiencies in the building thus impact current and future students' outcomes and successes. 4. Lexington High School (LHS) was designed to house 1,800 students but now exceeds its planned operating capacity by 650. The current high school facilities are inadequate and can no longer meet the educational needs of the 2,419 students and the nearly 400 staff members and administrators who support them. 5. The student population has diverse academic, artistic, athletic, cultural, economic, and mental health and wellness needs. A crowded high school makes it difficult to provide full and flexible access to all of our students' current LHS Program of Studies. Therefore, scheduling an academic year for high school students is decided not by the students' capabilities but by the limitations of the facilities (e.g., classrooms, science labs, exam spaces, etc.). 6. Forming social connections and friendships can be more challenging as spaces to gather and collaborate are limited. Even times in a busy school day that should serve as a respite, such as lunch, can be stressful. Students race to get lunch, find a spot to eat it, and return to their classrooms through crowded hallways or inclement weather. 7. Inadequate classrooms limit educators' ability to develop collaborative, interdisciplinary educational experiences and provide customization and innovation in instruction and curriculum. 8. Creative courses such as art, music, and drama have to deal with aging equipment, poor acoustics, and limited space, which hinders student participation. 9. The lack of maker spaces and collaborative spaces that promote student agency constricts self-directed, authentic educational experiences, which are the foundation of deeper learning. 10. The petitioners seek to extend this project in phases by several years. Educating 2,419 students near or within a construction site is challenging. Therefore, the longer the construction phase or 5 phases, the more disruptive it is for our students and educators struggling in the inferior current facilities. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: National or state financial contexts may change in the short or long term. Lexington is in an enviable position, having an accepted MSBA project underway. The MSBA has allocated financial support to our project during its planning, and we are on track to receive additional funding. 1. The MSBA does not offer "two-part funding" for school building projects, as the petitioners suggest. Lexington has an opportunity to partner with the MSBA today after three unsuccessful requests in prior years, but that opportunity may not be available tomorrow. Only 15% of all school districts that submit a Statement of Interest (SOI) are invited into the MSBA's capital pipeline. Lexington's successful SOI means that the MSBA has agreed to participate in our proj ect, contributing approximately $100M to offset the costs of the high school proj ect to taxpayers. 2. The Massachusetts School Building Authority has a dedicated funding stream of one penny of the state's 6.5% sales tax. The MSBA funds three types of projects (i.e., Core Program, Accelerated Repair, and Green Repair). Lexington received an invitation into the capital pipeline in March 2022 under the "Core Program," which means the MSBA will participate in a full replacement of the existing facilities. 3. For every year the high school project is delayed, Lexington faces escalation costs estimated at $15 - $20M annually. Any delay could cost us our MSBA partnership and j eopardize the $100M in anticipated funding. Districts often wait several years before receiving an invitation into the capital pipeline. If Lexington doesn't take this opportunity now, we risk having the MSBA give our $100M to another school district waiting to partner with them. MBTA ZONING BYLAW CHANGES & OVERCROWDING: Since 2014, Lexington Public Schools has monitored enrollment at every grade level with the help of the Enrollment Working Group and the LPS Data and Planning Department. This has helped the administration undertake efficiencies such as a centralized registration process for schools and to make difficult decisions, such as redistricting, with demonstrated success. 1. The LPS administration has been keeping track of housing changes in Lexington, especially in the MBTA zoning bylaws. An Educational Plan was created a year before the Town engaged a Designer and Owner's Project Manager. Lexington's zoning bylaw changes were addressed in the Ed Plan, and it signaled to the future Project Team that the new high school must be designed with expansion in mind. Plans to integrate the Central Office into the high school to add expansion opportunities and to address the Town's lack of fields for recreation and athletics were also noted. 2. The design enrollment is 2,395, but the current plans can accommodate at least 850 more students for a total of 3,200 or more if needed. These flexibilities are achieved by (1) increasing C. utilization and/or class sizes, (2) using the 12 additional classrooms for students instead of the Central Office administration, and (3) building a small addition to the school. 3. For the past 50 years, research has suggested a need for much smaller high schools in the United States. Smaller schools offer a greater sense of belonging, better relationships between educators and students, greater personalized learning opportunities, fewer disciplinary issues, reduced school violence, and a sense of community, all of which can ameliorate mental health issues. Lexington High School is currently the fifth-largest high school in Massachusetts. If we add 850 students to the current design enrollment (2,395), our new high school enrollment will be 3,245. 4. With a population of 3,245, Lexington High School would be the second-largest high school in Massachusetts, behind Brockton. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, Massachusetts's average high school size is 854. Over 50% of American High Schools are in the 500-2,500 student range. Some of the largest high schools number 3,000-5,000 in student population. Researchers and educational practitioners recognize that student achievement tends to suffer in larger schools, and a high school population that exceeds 3,000 is too large and undesirable. Therefore, as needed, other creative measures will be evaluated to manage student body size, such as alternate grade spans, school configurations, or community college partnerships, which will meet the unique needs of some cohorts of LHS students, thus reducing overcrowding. FACILITY ISSUES & MASTER PLANNING: In 1953, Lexington High School was relocated to a new building at 251 Waltham Street. Modest additions, which included a new auditorium, shop wing, and 16 more classrooms to accommodate students, were completed in 1957. Additions were made in the 1960s and early 2,000s. The building is now over 70 years old, beyond its useful life, and in need of full replacement. 2. As noted in this LexObserver article by LHS student Victoria Woo, "the current LHS building, constructed in the early 1950s, follows standards that were in place at that time. It is now outdated and fails to fully meet accessibility requirements from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Massachusetts Architectural Access Boards (MAAB)." 3. The Article 8 petitioners propose changes to one portion of the building, but the building code requirements do not work that way. The Existing Conditions Report, completed in February 2024, is 404 pages long. It details many issues with the existing building, and these code upgrade issues have been grandfathered. Despite the deficiencies, LHS still complies with the MA building code for fire protection, life safety, and accessibility. The petitioners seek to address high school building issues in phases; however, the Existing Conditions Report clarifies that any major modification or addition will require the remaining infrastructure to comply with the current building code, which would come at a significant cost to taxpayers. 4. The systems in our current high school building (e.g., HVAC boilers, piping, control systems, roofs, windows) are in danger of catastrophic failure. Ongoing maintenance costs and necessary repairs of the current high school facility are labor-intensive and continue to rise. Despite these exhaustive and costly efforts, students are still left with a subpar learning environment. ' Allen, R. (2002, February). Big schools: The way we are. Educational Leadership, 59 (5), 36-41. 7 5. We know the MBTA rezoning projects currently before the Planning Board and those in the pipeline. We have begun planning to manage any change in demand for school services across elementary, middle, and high school levels. q:3