Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Article 8 update

48 views
Skip to first unread message

Dawn McKenna

unread,
Nov 13, 2024, 11:43:35 AM11/13/24
to TMMA
As briefly mentioned on this list yesterday, and in preparation for the discussion around the Article 8 tonight, I wanted to make sure that everyone realizes that at the SBC meeting yesterday, two votes were taken regarding the Field House:

1. To include the add/reno option in the base school project. This motion passed unanimously.

2. To save space on the school building project site for a future new field house. This motion failed by a vote of 9-3 with 1 abstention.

This means that moving forward there is no option to explore building a new right-sized Field House at Lexington High School. Ahead of the votes, Principal Andrew Baker said at the SBC meeting, the Field House has been the number one issue the public has talked about with regard to the larger building project. Given this, I thought it was important that Town Meeting Members had a clear understanding of where this vital piece of the High School stands ahead of tonight's Special Town Meeting.

Thanks,

Dawn
Precinct 6


RODNEY COLE

unread,
Nov 13, 2024, 12:19:25 PM11/13/24
to Dawn McKenna, Dawn McKenna' via LexTMMA
Dawn, 
 
Thank you for that information.
 
Makes sense to me.
 
If we put $41M or so into enlarging and updating the existing fieldhouse into a facility that will function well for 50 or more years, we are not going to replace it within my lifetime - say 20 years or more hopefully 30 years. Indeed we may well keep that facility online and providing value for 50 or more years. We are not going to tear down a $41M building before at least towards its end of life. And, in my opinion, we are not going to have two fieldhouses in the same complex. Now to be sure these are not "facts" just my opinion.
 
Setting aside land for a very large fieldhouse will further constrain the architects who are already trying to deal with a complicated site and limited amount of land. Making things harder for the architects is likely to drive costs up or result in a less desirable building, or some combination. All for a "theoretical maybe building" we won't build for decades, if ever. Shoot, by then we may have another high school, or far less students than we have now - that far into the future, who knows. 
 
So I see these decisions as the right thing to do.
 
Rod Cole
Precinct 9
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/418514151.1139197.1731516171183%40mail.yahoo.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages