B
y Alice Waugh
Reporting on results from previous school building forums, architects noted that residents seem to be converging on a “price point” of $35 million to $40 million for the town’s net spending on a school project.
At the fourth and final School Building Advisory Committee public forum on the school building project on January 12, consultants from Dore & Whittier recapped the previously presented three families of renovation and construction options and their estimated prices (see the Lincoln Squirrel, Dec. 8, 2014):
- Option 1 – facilities needs only: $12–$29 million
- Option 2 – facilities needs plus “a la carte” educational enhancements: $29–$47 million
- Option 3 – facilities needs plus comprehensive educational enhancements: $54–$66 million
The architects added a seventh choice to the Option 2 family called Option 2G, which is the same as 2F but without $7.7 million in deferred facilities work such as a girls’ locker room in Reed Gym, improvements to playing fields, paving and curbing, etc. Option 2G would cost an estimated $39.9 million, said Jason Boone of Dore and Whittier.
At the State of the Town meeting in November and again this week, architects and school officials explained that Lincoln could apply to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for funding to offset some of the project’s cost. The town could be eligible for a reimbursement of 35 to 40 percent, but only for a project that was approved and overseen by the MSBA. The agency will support only projects that meet all of a school’s demonstrated educational needs, which for Lincoln would mean one of the choices from Option 3 or perhaps an upper-end Option 2.
More than 76 percent of residents at the State of the Town expressed a preference for the Option 3 family, while 20 percent voted for Option 2 and 4 percent for Option 1.
Applying again for MSBA funding would also add at least 18 months to the project timeline and about $3.3 million in cost escalation associated with that delay, as well as a requirement to conform to the state’s requirements and procedures. The MSBA would also require another feasibility study as well as a “clear distinction” between the school project and a community center that might be built, said Jon Richardson of Dore & Whittier.
Homing in on options
Since state funding is far from certain, residents at the third SBAC forum in December were asked which specific project options they would support, depending on the MSBA situation. The options that received the most votes, along with the net costs to the town after a state reimbursement of 40 percent, were:
- 2E—without state funding ($36.9 million), 17 votes
- 2F—without state funding ($47.6 million), 17 votes; with state funding (Lincoln’s share would be $28.6 million), 7 votes
- 3B—without state funding ($55.8 million), 19 votes; with state funding (Lincoln’s share would be $33.5 million), 10 votes
- 3C—with state funding (Lincoln’s share would be $35.3 million), 44 votes
Option 2G, which was not one of the voting options at that forum but was discussed verbally, would cost about $39.9 million overall, or $23.9 million with state funding.
“What we came to realize is that there is a price point the town is maybe organizing around” of $35 to $40 million as the town’s net cost for a project, Boone said.
What will the MSBA say?
Although there is some uncertainty as to the state’s willingness to fund a project , “we feel that a well-crafted statement of interest and strong support from the town would lead the MSBA to reengage,” Richardson said. “Their primary interest is in successful projects. They would love to take what at the moment is an unsuccessful project and turn it back into a successful project.”
In 2013, the MSBA approved a reimbursement of $21 million for a $49 million project, but the pledge was withdrawn after voters failed to approve the project by a two-thirds majority at Town Meeting.
Applying for state funding “is not just filling out a form and hoping for the best. Lincoln has to find a way to demonstrate its support for an MSBA project,” said School Committee chair Jennifer Glass. The committee would therefore seek a two-thirds majority at Town Meeting this March and a simple majority at the ballot box on the question of whether to apply, as well as support from all town boards and commissions.
To submit a statement of interest to the MSBA, the School Committee and Board of Selectmen are not required to gather a two-thirds voter majority or have any town-wide vote at all, “but that’s not how we want to do this.” Glass said. “If we can’t get two-thirds now, when there isn’t any money on the table,” it will be even harder to do so once voters are asked to approve a specific expenditure, she added. “It is a risk but, it’s a self-imposed risk.”
Deciding on the questions
The School Committee must now come up with wording for Town Meeting warrant articles to find out whether voters want to (1) support a project with a net cost to the town of $30 million to $48 million, (2) reapply for MSBA funding, and (3) approve spending for a feasibility study. The cost of that study would depend on the results of the first two votes. Glass presented three possible ways to frame these questions. Her full presentation also included potential construction timelines that would vary according to the various voting outcomes, with construction beginning anywhere from fall 2016 to mid-2018.
Some residents at this week’s forum worried that the price range voters might be asked about ($30 to $45 million) is too broad, or that multiple questions would be too confusing.
Resident Sara Mattes suggested dividing the various questions between the regular Town Meeting in March and a special Town Meeting in June. “You’re going to really jam a Town Meeting, and it will be very complicated and people may get frustrated,” she said.
Asked about the impact on homeowners’ tax bills of the various options, Glass said that the Finance Committee was working on estimates. At the State of the Town meeting, the FinCom offered figures for estimated property tax increases ranging from 2.5 to 7.3 percent, or $321 to $2,254, based on the median tax bill of $12,503 in fiscal 2015. The estimates assumed different scenarios such as the amount borrowed ($10 million to $50 million), the interest rate (3.6 percent or 4.6 percent) and the time span of the bond (20 or 30 years).