By Alice Waugh
In a follow-up to the State of the Town meeting where attendees expressed preferences for school and community center ideas with sticky dots, those dots were out in force again last Wednesday as residents focused on which direction to go for a school building project.
The December 2 meeting was the third in a series of open forums hosted by the School Building Advisory Committee to update residents on renovation/construction options and cost estimates for meeting the school building’s basic facilities needs as well as educational upgrades.
At the State of the Town meeting on November 15 (see the Lincoln Squirrel, Nov. 17, 2014), architects from Dore and Whittier presented project possibilities are grouped into three broad categories (all estimates include construction costs, professional fees, phasing and escalation due to the passage of time):
- Option 1: facilities work only ($12.2 million to $29 million)
- Option 2: facilities plus some “a la carte” educational enhancements ($29.5 million to $47.6 million)
- Option 3: a comprehensive package of facilities and educational upgrades ($54.7 million to $58.8 million)
Architect Jason Boone of Dore and Whittier reported last week that 76 percent of residents expressed a preference for Option 3, while 20 percent preferred Option 2 and just 4 percent preferred Option 1. In comment sticky notes at State of the Town, residents said they wanted the school project to be tied as closely as possible to a community center project, asked that the new school spaces be energy-efficient, and supported the educational vision outlined by Superintendent of Schools Becky McFall.
Key variables that residents will have to weigh when deciding which route to pursue are cost, which educational enhancements to choose, the importance of energy efficiency in light of the the town bylaw seeking to eliminate fossil fuel consumption in town buildings by 2030, the extent to which people want to preserve the existing school, project timing, and the level of joint school/community use for space in a renovated school.
The cost of a school project will depend on whether the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is willing to pay for some of it. Boone noted that in the previous go-round, the MSBA would have paid about 40 percent of the $49 million cost for a new school if residents had approved the project by a two-thirds margin at Town Meeting.
If the town decides to seek MSBA funding again, the project must address all of the school’s facilities and educational needs to be eligible, meaning “you would have to do a high Option 2 or one of the Option 3s,” Boone said.
There are some conditions that would come with seeking MSBA funding. The town would have to resubmit a statement of interest and do another feasibility study; there would be a delay of at least 18 months in starting construction (vs. doing a project with town money only); and the timing and amount of funding is uncertain.
Using Option 3A as an example, a 40 percent grant from the MSBA would mean the town would get about $24.3 million, though that would be partially offset by an extra $3.3 million cost caused by the time delay while going through the MSBA process, Boone said. If all went well, the renovated building under Option 3A would be ready for occupancy in April 2019 without MSBA funding and June 2020 with the funding, he said.
Involving the MSBA would also mean less opportunity for overlap between new school space and a community center. “They do have restrictions and requirements, and the relationship of a community center to a school project would be problematic. Trying to combine projects could be a potential red flag to the MSBA,” Boone said.
Residents discussed various community center sites at the State of the Town and indicated that having it located on the site of the Hartwell pods was the best option. “We have not explored any options that embed any community center programming in any of our options,” but none of the Dore and Whittier proposal would prevent such a facility from going on the Hartwell site, Boone said.
Educational enhancement options
When it comes down to choosing among the educational enhancements under discussion, “we acknowledge that we will likely have to make some very difficult decisions,” McFall said as she discussed a sheet listing the educational value (high, moderate or modest) added by various upgrades, “but anything we do to the building will be an educational improvement—anything,” she said.
A cafeteria/commons space for teaching larger groups appeared as a high improvement in three of McFall’s lists of upgrade goals: flexible multi-use spaces, security (since it would involve building a link between the Brooks school and the Reed gym), and community use. “Adding that space really meets a lot of different needs,” she said. A package including a Brooks cafeteria would cost at least $36.6 million by Dore and Whittier’s estimates.
As for the energy efficiency of the various options, Boone said Dore and Whittier hasn’t come up with estimates for work that would meet the 2030 bylaw standards, but any building that did so would need advanced heating/ventilation/air conditioning technology incorporating alternative energy such as geothermal, wind and/or solar.
“It’s important to note that there would be a measurable and significant cost premium to truly achieve that goal,” he said. That priority is also affected by the preservation variable. The more of the existing building you try to save, the harder it becomes to achieve the 2030 goals,” Boone said. “We need to hear from you as to prioritization.”
Those at the meeting were then asked to indicate with one sticky dot which of the specific options they would support with MSBA funding and the another dot what they could support without money from the MSBA. The result: Option 3C got the most stickers overall and a clear majority of the “with MSBA funding” stickers, while several options—2D/E, 2F, 3B and 3C—garnered a good number of “without MSBA funding” stickers. All of Dore and Whittier’s options are illustrated here.
Options 3B and 3C offer the same features and differ only on the proportion of renovation to new construction. Option 3B is essentially the idea proposed by the “Fireside Seven,” a group of Lincoln architects and designers including Douglas Adams and Ken Bassett that formed after the defeat of a new $49 million school at Town Meeting in November 2012 (see the Lincoln Squirrel, April 2, 2013). It would cost $55.8 million and calls for about two-third renovation and one-third new construction. Option 3C would cost $58.5 million and include 52 percent renovation vs. 48 percent new construction. The drawing for that option shows a new two-story segment connecting the Smith building and the 1994 link, although Boone said two floors weren’t a given and that residents should focus only on the percentage of renovation to new construction.