By Alice Waugh
(Editor’s note: this story has been corrected to include a link to the SBAC’s final report, which previously was available only in draft form.)
The School Building Advisory Committee (SBAC) will present its final report to the School Committee tonight—a report that says Lincoln should pursue state funding for a modified “L-shaped” building and renovation project rather than a “repair only” pathway.
The School Committee meeting starts at 7 p.m. in the Hartwell Multipurpose Room with a continuation of the FY15 preliminary budget presentation. The SBAC is second on the agenda and is expected to begin around 7:45 p.m. There will be time for public questions and comments.
The SBAC was formed to discuss alternatives to the school project that failed to win the required two-thirds majority at a Special Town Meeting a year ago. Under that plan, the state would have provide $21 million for a $49 million project. Some residents subsequently called for a modified design in which the building would be L-shaped, or a more modest and inexpensive repair-only plan.
The report can be viewed and downloaded here. Among its discussion points:
- “The realization that repairs alone, while critical to the maintaining the physical integrity of the buildings, will not further the educational objectives.
- “The possibility that the MSBA [Massachusetts School Building Authority] will not support the project and the implications of such a decision on the ‘pathways’ available to the town.
- “The implementation problems associated with any L-shaped pathway pursued by the School Committee.
- “The issue of whether school campus on Ballfield Road should serve as a potential location for a community center.”
The report examines two hypothetical pathways for a school project—one that assumes MSBA funding and one without such funding—though it did not go into specific plans or cost estimates for either route.
“Although the Committee’s members began their work with very different ideas about what the school buildings needed, they, after weeks of work and deliberations, reached a consensus on what the schools require. These needs are significant and expensive,” the report says. “Thus, MSBA funding is essential for the School Committee being able to implement its comprehensive plan for school facility improvements and repairs that will support educational enhancement at the Lincoln School.”
Lincoln is currently awaiting action on its latest statement of interest (SOI), the first step in applying for a grant from the MSBA. The MSBA’s board of directors is meeting today, though the posted agenda does not include Lincoln.
In an FAQ page on its website, the MSBA explains that SOIs are not considered on a first-come, first-served basis, but rather on several factors, including the “extent and urgency” of a school’s problems relative to those described in other SOIs. More than 200 schools submitted SOIs to the MSBA for consideration in fiscal 2013.
If a renewed offer of MSBA funding doesn’t materialize, “the town will be placed in a difficult position because it will not be able to address the legitimate needs of the schools in a comprehensive manner,” the SBAC report says. “What the town would be willing to pay for under these circumstances is unclear. However, what is clear is that the Town would have to do some deep soul-searching about how much it values the education of its children supported by appropriate facilities and the nexus between a high quality school system and property values.”
The SBAC explored various “repair-only” scenarios under the assumption that this approach would be less expensive than a full-fledged renovation and construction project. However, members found that “any significant repair effort would likely trigger major [building] code requirements and force very significant expenditures. A project designed as a $6 million repair could turn quickly into a repair and code compliance project easily costing $12-$14 million. A project designed to avoid triggering codes would likely not be sufficiently large in scope so as to reasonably guarantee successful and continued facility operation over the mid/long term. It would also present an increased risk of multiple emergency-type repairs,” the report says.
Another reason the SBAC rejected a repair-only pathway is that “such a project would have limited, if any, educational or security benefits.” Without MSBA funding, critical features of the previous plan would have to be eliminated as too costly, including “much-needed” cafeterias and flexible learning spaces as well as a link to the Reed Gym; improvement to the second- and third-grade space; special-needs improvements; improved lighting, air quality and acoustics; and a solution to the ongoing problem of Smith boiler room flooding.
The SBAC looked at the possibility of having a community center tied in some way to a school project but concluded that the town isn’t far enough along in discussions about that idea.
“The committee is concerned about the needs of the schools not being addressed by the town until the town decides what, if anything, it wants to do about a community center. In the view of the committee, this places the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse. The needs of the schools are real; they need to be addressed now, not at some undetermined point in the future,” the report says.
Members of the SBAC are Doug Adams, Ken Bassett, Owen Beenhouwer, Vincent Cannistraro, Tim Christenfeld, Hathaway Russell, Steven P. Perlmutter (chair), Maggy Pietropaolo, Peter Sugar and Gary Taylor.