1.​  Please send an email to your precinct’s TM members (below), the Select Board (selectboard@lexingtonma.org) , and to the School Committee (school-com@lexingtonma.org). For your TM member, use the email address that corresponds with your precinct:

​

** Please note - we are hearing that some of these email addresses below will bounce if sent from a google-based email.  The town has been notified.  If you have a non-google email address you may want to employ that to send your email.**​

​

Precinct1@LexingtonTMMA.org

Precinct2@LexingtonTMMA.org

Precinct3@LexingtonTMMA.org

Precinct4@LexingtonTMMA.org

Precinct5@LexingtonTMMA.org

Precinct6@LexingtonTMMA.org

Precinct7@LexingtonTMMA.org

Precinct8@LexingtonTMMA.org

Atlarge@LexingtonTMMA.org

 

2. If you don't know your precinct, find it here!

​

3. Copy and paste all the italicized text below, including the rebuttal, in your letter:

Dear Town Meeting members, Select Board members and School Committee members,

​

I support the proposal of LHS4All that the SBC develops a STAGED plan at a LOWER COST per students that is OFF THE FIELDS (i.e., stays on current campus).​

​

You can look up a convincing argument for these votes on the LHS4ALL.com. Note that there are several factual errors in the CEC report that are explained in our rebuttal below.

​

Thank you for your consideration,

​

<Put your name here>

​

ps: CEC REPORT REBUTTAL

​

There are 8 issues with the recent report by the CEC.  A full explanation of these issues can be found on the LHS4ALL website.

​

1. Understates Costs of Future Bloom Expansion

2. Missing Benefits to Holding on to Old Harrington  (short and long term options).

3. Confusion over Thrive Proposals - Need to Slow Down

4. Confusion over Thrive Costs and Proposals

5. Incorrect Statement on Codes - Verifies with Building Department  

6. Misunderstanding of Thrive Proposal - No Specifics Stated to Stage 2 

7. Potential Changes to MSBA Grant

8. Misinformation on Article 97 - Wetlands Protection: 

 

Summary:

The fundamental problems with the CEC report is that CEC members were not given enough time to carefully learn about our proposal, nor were they presented information about THRIVE by impartial evaluators (all three evaluators are members of SBC who are advocating for Bloom). This alone argues to everyone taking a little bit (1-2 months) of additional time to come up with Plan B – our THRIVE 2-stage concept. 

 

Based on Dr. Hackett’s explanation of how the MSBA schedule works, the 11/12/2024 deadline is there so for the next three weeks the SBC and MSBA can work on any small issues that would slow down prompt approval. The real deadline for full submittal is mid-December 2024, with an approval to proceed to the next step expected in Feb. 2025. If extra two months are added now, we can expect the MSBA approval in April 2025. Though this makes meeting the deadline for fall 2025 special TM very tight, the risk of not getting Art. 97 protections lifted from the fields is not worth the risk of charging forth with Bloom now.

 

We also need to bring NEW perspectives and options into the decision process so that we can get a new LHS that we can afford and which preserves our community. 

 

Thank you for considering our request for slowing down the process by a month or two so the SBC can instruct the architects to develop a serious staged proposal. We cannot gamble either on not being able to build on the fields nor on getting the single HUGE debt exclusion defeated in fall 2025.​​​​​