By Alice Waugh
State officials have given Lincoln another two months to decide how to proceed with the school building project, but they appeared to offer little wiggle room as far as allowing changes to their approved plan.
The town has until February 28, 2013 to “assess community support and examine how best to proceed,” said the December 14 letter to Superintendent of Schools Becky McFall from Mary Pichetti, director of capital planning for the Massachusetts School Building Authority. McFall and School Committee Chair Jennifer Glass wrote on November 15 to ask for an extension to try to keep the project alive after it failed to get a two-thirds majority at the November 3 Town Meeting.
The School Committee has scheduled several more meetings and a survey to get a clearer idea of why residents voted against the project and what, if anything, can be done to win more support. However, the MSBA said in its most recent letter that it would recommend going forward only if “the District determines as a result of its community outreach that the same project [emphasis is MSBA’s] as proposed and approved by the MSBA is the preferred direction” and that Lincoln voters subsequently approve it in sufficient numbers. The letter did not specify a deadline for a second vote.
Starting from scratch?
If the town decides by February 28 that a “different project… is the preferred direction,” it will have to start from scratch, selecting an owner’s project manager and designer and producing a new feasibility study and schematics without any state funding for that work.
Several Lincoln officials spoke by phone with the MSBA on December 18 to ask “what is the definition of ‘different,'” Glass reported that evening at a joint meeting of the School, Committee and School Building Committee SBC). They asked whether any of three scenarios would constitute a different project: keeping the proposed building design but altering the site plan (parking, roadways, landscaping, etc.) and/or keeping portions of Smith for town use, or reverting to an earlier proposed design that would satisfy the town’s original statement of interest to the MSBA.
“The response was that we need to come to them with a specific proposal in order for them to weigh in,” Glass said.
While acknowledging the vagueness of the MSBA letter, selectmen at their meeting the previous night that they would not support the idea of bringing the same project to another Town Meeting (see previous Lincoln Squirrel story).
Funding uncertainties
Hanging in the balance is $21 million that the MSBA pledged to help pay for the school renovations and additions if enough residents agreed to pay the town’s share, which would be about $28 million. If the original project and accompanying state pledge falls through, the town will still have to pay millions for required repairs and upgrades to the existing school buildings. The Maguire Group estimated in an October report that urgent repairs and code updates would cost $33 million, including $2.6 million for immediate repairs and $19.3 million for repairs required within five years.
“We have to start thinking about the financing cost of two separate projects,” said Finance Committee member Eric Harris.
Residents need to carefully “assess the risk” of foregoing the promised $21 million, McFall said. If they feel the funding is important, “there’s a certain path we need to go down,” but if not, they must undergo a “broader, longer and more open [process] and be willing to give up the MSBA funding to do that.”
“I think that’s an option you have, given how direct the [December 14 MSBA] letter is… and how strong the voices were against the project at the Town Meeting,” said Capital Planning Committee member Gustav Beerel. He wondered what purpose the sessions would have “other than additional sales toward another town vote… we have lost a lot of trust of the community in town processes and leadership.”
“There will be a large number of people who will be upset if the project falls apart,” said Harris, noting that the project was approved by a majority of voters even though it fell short of the two-thirds threshold.
Smith issue a ‘black hole’
As the SBC acknowledged in its call to the MSBA, some of the objections to the project revolved around the fate of the Smith school building, which was renovated in 1994 but is slated to be torn down to make room for a playing field. In its draft survey, the SBC asked if residents wanted to go ahead with the project with some site changes, including retaining part of the Smith building for community uses. However, Selectman Peter Braun said it would be “inappropriate” to offer this an option now, because the Capital Planning Committee and Board of Selectmen have not discussed or voted on this idea.
“It’s essentially a new project being tacked onto a school project,” he said. “It’s a complete black hole. It hasn’t gone through any of the appropriate processes. I just don’t think it should be on the table at this point.”
The SBC posted a summary of residents’ objections as part of a packet of materials, and the document can also be downloaded here.
More feedback opportunities
The School Committee and SBC will hold public meetings on the following dates:
- Goals and values workshop: Wednesday, January 9 (7-10 p.m.)
- Soliciting site and design ideas: Wednesday, January 16 (7:30-10:30 p.m.)
- Planning for community charrettes: Tuesday, January 22 (7:30-10:30 p.m.)
- Community charrettes (identical) to evaluate several scenarios: Sunday, January 27 (9 a.m.-noon) and Thursday, January 31 (7-10 p.m.)
The panels also discussed the content of a survey that will be mailed to all residents and also be made available online. The unrevised draft is available here.