Meeting report · School Building Committee
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
School Building Committee — April 6, 2026
The meeting was largely procedural and constructive, but the bathroom design issue — combining public comments from three speakers, SBC members' dissatisfaction with the School Committee's decision, and calls for a formal SBC counter-vote — introduced genuine tension that elevated the tone above routine.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Lexington High School Rebuild — $534.1M Project Budget
$534.1 million public school construction project; potential add alternates including banked track ($1.7–2.1M) and building height modifications could increase cost further; furniture/technology overages also under review Affected: All Lexington taxpayers and current/future LHS students
other high impact
02
Bathroom Design Policy for New Lexington High School
Permanent architectural decision affecting daily access to bathroom facilities; design locks in floor-by-floor distribution of gendered vs. all-gender bathrooms with limited post-construction flexibility Affected: All current and future LHS students, their families, and staff
other high impact
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approved minutes from February 13, 2026 meeting
Roll call vote with all present members voting yes: Andrew Baker, Mark Barrett, Steve Bartha, Mike Cronin, Chuck Pavazo, Carolyn Koznoff, Ksenius Lavsky, and Kathleen Lenahan
Unanimous approval
Rejected proposed emergency access drive
Committee agreed to not implement the emergency access drive based on traffic study showing no meaningful improvement and concerns about introducing cars to pedestrian areas. Will permit but not execute to maintain future flexibility.
Consensus decision against implementation
School Committee voted to accept bathroom design recommendation
Vote taken at March 10th school committee meeting on design with ground floor having two traditional gendered bathrooms and one all-gender bathroom, floors 2-4 having two all-gender bathrooms and one traditional gendered bathroom
4 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstention
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 00:22 Meeting Opening and Attendance
Chair Kathleen Lenahan called the meeting to order and conducted roll call. Several members were absent including Julie, John Himmel, Joe Pato, Ching Min Shah, and Dan Boss.
Speakers: Kathleen Lenahan, Andrew Baker, Mark Barrett, Steve Bartha, Mike Cronin, Chuck Pavazo, Carolyn Koznoff, Ksenius Lavsky, Charles Lamb, Alan Levine
▶ 02:02 February 13, 2026 Minutes Approval
The committee voted to approve the minutes from the February 13, 2026 meeting with unanimous approval from all present members.
Speakers: Kathleen Lenahan, Andrew Baker, Mark Barrett
▶ 03:16 DD Cost Estimate Update
Mike Burton provided an update on Design Development cost estimates. The project is on budget at $534.1 million with potential additional considerations including building height issues, traffic improvements, and banked track addition.
Speakers: Mike Burton, Chuck Pavazo, Ksenius Lavsky
▶ 16:31 Building Exterior Color and Patterning
Brian presented three exterior design options (stacked, banded, gradient) with the committee showing preference for the stacked option. The Permanent Building Committee had negative feedback on the gradient option.
Speakers: Brian, Ksenius Lavsky, Chuck Pavazo, Kathleen Lenahan
▶ 33:24 Site Design and Emergency Access Drive Decision
Aaron presented analysis on a proposed emergency access drive to address abutter concerns about increased Waltham Street traffic. Traffic study showed no meaningful improvement, and committee decided against implementation.
Speakers: Aaron Priscillio, Carolyn Koznoff, Andrew Baker, Ksenius Lavsky, Chuck Pavazo
▶ 49:09 Landscape Design Updates
Andy Elliott presented comprehensive landscape design updates including bike rack locations, courtyard design, knoll restoration with microforest, sensory gardens for students with sensory processing needs, and overall planting strategy.
Speakers: Andy Elliott, Chuck Pavazo, Kathleen Lenahan
▶ 1:18:44 Field House Track Design Update
Discussion of revised field house design based on existing banked D-shaped track with four lanes at 146 meters, using raised flooring system on pedestals. Estimated cost range of $1.7-2.1 million as add alternate.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:22:41 Geothermal Pipe Layout Options
Comparison of two approaches: bringing circuit piping directly into building with drop slab ($1.5M) versus using outdoor underground vaults with main floor mechanical room (net $256K savings).
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:38:41 Bathroom Design Policy Update
Update on school committee's March 10th vote accepting bathroom design recommendation (4-0-1) after MSBA clarification that this is educational policy within school committee jurisdiction.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Bathroom Design Policy — Flexibility vs. Fixed Layout
The School Committee voted 4-0-1 to accept a bathroom design that SBC members believe does not reflect the SBC's own preferences. Multiple SBC members expressed that they favored a more easily modifiable design, two public speakers directly challenged the current layout's inclusivity and accessibility, and one SBC member (Chuck Pavazo) questioned whether the full SBC should take a formal vote to register disagreement with the School Committee's position. Another SBC member (Charles Lamb) warned the decision 'is going to come back to bite us.' This involves competing values around gender inclusivity, traditional comfort, and practical walkability.
Board position: Acknowledged the School Committee's 4-0-1 vote but did not formally ratify it; deferred to the School Committee's jurisdiction while SBC members signaled dissatisfaction. Chair tasked with taking concerns back to Vice Chair Larry Freeman.
Internal dissent
Chuck Pavazo explicitly questioned whether SBC shares the School Committee's view and proposed a formal SBC vote on the issue. Carolyn Koznoff noted SBC had previously favored more flexible options. Charles Lamb expressed strong concern that the decision would 'come back to bite us.' The School Committee vote itself included one abstention.
high concern
02
Bathroom Walking Distance and Accessibility
Public commenter Jashang Zhang argued that the current design forces students to walk up to 1.7 minutes to reach a bathroom of their choice between classes, which is operationally unacceptable given typical passing periods. This is a practical student welfare concern that received no board response.
Board position: No response given; the board did not address this specific concern during the meeting.
medium concern
03
Project Budget Pressure — Building Height, Furniture/Technology Overages
The project is currently on budget at $534.1 million, but multiple potential additions are under consideration including building height modifications and a banked track ($1.7–2.1M add alternate). Furniture and technology budgets are running over SD levels. Chuck Pavazo emphasized that any additions must be offset by cuts elsewhere, signaling internal fiscal tension on a very large public investment.
Board position: Committed to maintaining budget discipline; instructed the school department and design team to reduce furniture/technology overages back to SD levels. Banked track and building height changes remain as potential add alternates, not yet approved.
medium concern
04
Emergency Access Drive Rejection — Abutter Traffic Concerns Unresolved
Abutters had raised concerns about increased Waltham Street traffic due to the project. The proposed emergency access drive was studied as a mitigation but the traffic analysis showed no meaningful improvement. Andrew Baker also raised pedestrian safety concerns about introducing vehicles into pedestrian zones. The committee rejected the drive, leaving abutter concerns effectively unaddressed.
Board position: Consensus decision against implementation, though the committee opted to 'permit but not execute' to preserve future flexibility.
medium concern
Split votes
School Committee vote on bathroom design recommendation (reported at this meeting, voted March 10, 2026)
4-0-1
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Continue studying building height and mechanical room floor requirements with Turner Construction
Assigned: SMMA design team · Due: Ongoing
Meet with Design Advisory Committee and PBC representatives for facade design review
Assigned: Brian and design team · Due: Not specified
Work to reduce furniture and technology budget overages back to SD levels
Assigned: School department and design team · Due: Not specified
Provide real material samples for exterior brick and materials palette review
Assigned: Design team · Due: Not specified
Check meeting minutes to confirm whether SBC took formal vote or straw poll on bathroom design
Assigned: Kathleen (a speaker) · Due: Next meeting
Take SBC concerns about bathroom design flexibility back to Vice Chair Larry Freeman
Assigned: Kathleen (a speaker) · Due: Not specified
Continue work on geothermal solution and report back on final recommendation
Assigned: Design Team · Due: Future meeting (not next Monday)
Include add alternate for vaults in early geothermal bid package going out this month
Assigned: Design Team · Due: This month
Notable statements
Given our current enrollment, graduation happens at the Songus arena in Lowell and probably would need to continue to take place...unless our graduating classes across the board have reduced to about, you know, below 400 students — Andrew Baker · Clarifying that graduation cannot return to campus until enrollment significantly decreases ▶ 07:46
The building height, in my opinion, should be listed under TVD under potential target value design as an add and...if you're adding in one department, you're removing from another department — Chuck Pavazo · Emphasizing that any building height additions should be offset by reductions elsewhere in the budget ▶ 09:53
I am afraid about the cut through traffic and people driving at speed in those areas...I've never been a huge favor of this cut through — Andrew Baker · Expressing concerns about the proposed emergency access drive and pedestrian safety ▶ 43:53
One in six students in general have some sort of sensory processing disorder. So at Lexington High School, the students who could be impacted by something like this, 330 to 415 students — Andy Elliott · Explaining the rationale for including sensory gardens in the landscape design ▶ 1:04:23
I think nothing creates warmth quite like nature — Speaker B (Kathleen) · Commenting on landscape design's emotional importance for the school ▶ 1:08:08
I thought that when we discussed this we were on this committee more in favor of having something that was easily modified going forward — Speaker F (Carolyn) · Noting that SBC preferred more flexible bathroom design options ▶ 1:43:37
I do not think that the school building committee shares that same opinion [as school committee on bathrooms]. I wonder whether we should take an official vote on where the school building committee stands on this issue — Speaker A (Chuck) · Questioning whether SBC should formally vote on bathroom design position ▶ 1:54:32
I think this is a decision that's going to come back to bite us — Speaker H (Charles) · Expressing concern about bathroom design decision ▶ 1:57:17
Member positions
4 issues · 1 explicit · 3 inferred
Kathleen Lenihan
Present
Chair
February 13, 2026 Minutes Approval
YES
✓
Site Design and Emergency Access Drive Decision
~
Agreed with consensus against implementing the emergency access drive.
Bathroom Design Policy — Flexibility vs. Fixed Layout
✓
Tasked with raising SBC flexibility concerns to Vice Chair Larry Freeman; to verify if prior SBC action was vote or straw poll.
Absent
Absent
Absent
Present
February 13, 2026 Minutes Approval
YES
✓
Site Design and Emergency Access Drive Decision
~
Participated in discussion; aligned with consensus against the emergency access drive.
Bathroom Design Policy — Flexibility vs. Fixed Layout
✓
Noted SBC had previously favored more easily modifiable bathroom design options.
Absent
Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position.
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
3
Total speakers
0
Addressed
0
Partial
3
Not addressed
Jashang Zhang
Not addressed
Expressed concern about bathroom layout and distance between bathrooms in the current design. Argued that the maximum walking distance of 1.7 minutes to reach a bathroom of choice is unacceptable and requested the design team propose a new layout where maximum distance is 30-45 seconds.
Key concern
Bathroom accessibility - students need shorter walking distances (30-45 seconds max) to reach bathrooms of their choice between classes
The board did not respond to this specific concern about walking distances to bathrooms
Dawn McKenna
Not addressed
Made several comments including support for the field house track design, warning against skimping on furniture/equipment, opposing artificial grass on the roof, and suggesting the exterior facade is too busy with too many colors. Also mentioned graduation options.
Key concern
Multiple concerns including field house design, furniture budget, landscaping choices, and building exterior aesthetics
The board did not respond to any of these specific concerns during the meeting
Tricia Jeuness
Not addressed
Advocated for a more inclusive bathroom design that provides equal access to traditional gendered and all-gender bathrooms on every floor. Expressed that the current design doesn't truly serve everyone as some people don't feel comfortable with the current bathroom options.
Key concern
Bathroom design inclusivity - requesting equal distribution of girls, boys, and all-gender bathrooms throughout the school to truly accommodate everyone's comfort level
The board did not respond to this concern, though there was later discussion among board members about potentially revisiting the bathroom policy
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Lexington.
Follow Lexington
One email when a new report is published from the School Building Committee — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
claude-sonnet-4-20250514, claude-sonnet-4-6, claude-opus-4-6 · analyzed 2026-05-19.