By Alice Waugh
The School Committee has asked for more time from the state and more money from the town in hopes of salvaging almost $21 million in state aid promised for the school building project, which earlier this month failed to garner enough voter support to move forward.
School Committee chairman Jennifer Glass and Superintendent of School Becky McFall sent a letter on November 15 to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) to formally report on the failed town meeting vote on Nov. 3 and ask if the town could have more time to achieve resident buy-in before the state-funding window of opportunity closes. The MSBA had committed to providing $20.9 million of the $49 million that would be needed for major renovations and additions to the school if voters had approved the project by a two-thirds majority at town meeting and a simple majority at the polls on Election Day.
Glass and McFall asked the MSBA to give the town until the end of February 2013 to “determine whether we believe the project can garner sufficient support from he Town, and whether and to what extent revisions of the project will be necessary.”
At the special town meeting on November 3, more than 700 residents packed the Brooks auditorium to hear and make arguments for and against the project. After almost four hours of presentations and discusion, voters passed the measure 370-321 (54 percent to 45 percent), which did not meet the two-thirds requirement. Three days later, voters approved a Proposition 2½ override to fund the town’s share of the project by a similar margin, 53 percent to 47 percent (1,735 to 1,547). However, that vote was probably moot, given the earlier town meeting result.
Glass said last week before the letter was sent that she didn’t know when they might expect a reply from the state. “They’re looking forward to getting our letter, and that’ll be the start of a conversation,” she said.
The School Committee is also seeking additional funds from the Finance Committee to pay for modifications to the plan by OMR Architects. At its November 13 meeting, the School Building Committee (SBC) voted to request $30,000 for the architect and owner project manager to assist in discussions over the coming weeks. If residents decide that major design work is needed, that would required considerably more money. In 2010, the town approved $650,000 for the school project feasibility study, which includes the architectural work done so far.
Taking stock at a joint meeting
The School Committee and School Building Committee met jointly on November 8 to discus the results of the two votes and ponder their options. SBC vice chairman Gary Taylor noted that there were “four or five themes” of comments in opposition to the project:
- The general campus layout—especially the siting of parking and a new playing field.
- The building design—for example, some residents objected to having a block of classrooms around a closed interior courtyard.
- The public process—some felt the communication to residents was not inclusive enough and focused more on selling a specific plan rather than gathering input.
- The timing—voting approval in the absence of a finished 25-year town capital improvement plan and uncertainty over the fate of Hanscom Air Force Base was troubling.
- Finances—some residents felt the project was too costly and preferred less expensive short-term repairs, even though that would mean losing millions in state reimbursement for new construction.
Residents also commented that the link between the school’s physical structure and the resulting educational benefits wasn’t clear, and that the other capital needs of the town weren’t sufficiently considered. “A lot of people are not convinced we should tear down a perfectly good building,” said Planning Board member Bryce Wolf, referring to the Smith building, which is slated for demolition in the project plan but which some have suggested could be used by the Council on Aging or the Recreation Department, which is “bursting at the seams,” he said.
Even if the MSBA grants an extension, there may not be enough time to get the project revised and approved before the regular town meeting in March, or even by the end of the fiscal year on June 30. Jeanne Roberts of OMR Architects said at the November 8 meeting that there wasn’t enough time to do any substantial redesign of the building itself within that time frame, though the site plan (parking, etc.) could be altered to some degree.
“The MSBA has bent over backwards for us,” Taylor said. “if we don’t move forward, it’s going to be a long time before they accept anything from Lincoln” in the scope of what it’s already approved for reimbursement.
Until the town gets a reply from the MSBA, questions that hang in the air include:
- How much more time, if any, will the MSBA allow before pulling the plug on its promised $20.9 million project reimbursement?
- What changes to the project plan will be needed to achieve voter approval by the required margin?
- Is there enough time to gather more resident input, produce a revised project plan, and hold another special town meeting before the end of the fiscal year on June 30?
The SBC will meet every Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. for the next few weeks to continue discussions.