• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar

The Lincoln Squirrel – News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

  • Home
  • About/Contact
  • Advertise
  • Legal Notices
    • Submitting legal notices
  • Lincoln Resources
    • Coming Up in Lincoln
    • Municipal Calendar
    • Lincoln Links
  • Merchandise
  • Subscriptions
    • My Account
    • Log In
    • Log Out
  • Lincoln Review
    • About the Lincoln Review
    • Issues
    • Submit your work

Letter to the editor: option C offers the most benefits

May 29, 2018

To the editor:

I’m voting for C on June 9th and I wanted to share my process of elimination of the other four options using SBC’s taxonomy:

Minimum requirements (R and L1): R is essentially opening the hood and starts at $49 million, but doesn’t even address some basic utility issues. Similarly, L1 at $73 million doesn’t take care of 2030 energy requirements. If we’re taking out a 30-year bond, I can’t imagine we would build something with a known compliance issue and kick the can a few years down the road for other repairs/upgrades. As the name suggests, this the “minimum requirements” option set and they are there more for completeness sake.

Upgrading current model (L2): This may be seen as the fiscally responsible, middle-of-the-road option at $8 million, saving 10–15% over the next set of options that offer tangible educational benefits. Yet, this is essentially succumbing to the Goldilocks fallacy when we need to make a capital decision with a 50-year+ horizon—much longer than the bond term. It’s hard for me to imagine spending this kind of money without some tangible educational upside.

Also, people may think that if we go above this amount, we may not fund other capital investments such as the community center because we hit our debt ceiling defined as 5% of Lincoln property assessments. With the upcoming higher property assessment, this is not the case. We can and should treat community center and other projects independently.

Transforming educational spaces (C and L3): Compared to L3, C offers more educational space with less square footage, as the two-story building doesn’t waste space on long hallways etc.; it’s faster to build (32 months vs. 36); creates room for another ballfield; and the compact footprint minimizes walk times, saves time, and improves interactivity. I am also happy with the aesthetics of C and don’t have any nostalgic tie to the L shape. Given the $3.9 million difference (C at $98.7 million vs. L3 at $93.4 million), I can’t see a good reason to go with L3 over C.

I want to thank SBC for taking the time to compile and thoughtfully communicate a ton of information. It made it much easier for me to converge.

Sincerely,

Fuat Koro
1 Sweet Bay Lane

Category: government, letters to the editor, school project*, schools Leave a Comment

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Upcoming Events

May 17
6:30 pm - 9:00 pm

Gropius House birthday celebration

May 18
11:00 am - 1:00 pm

LLCT plant sale

May 18
3:00 pm - 5:00 pm

Children’s Creativity Festival

May 18
3:30 pm - 4:30 pm

Kids Archaeology Dig: Codman Farm Before Time

May 18
4:30 pm - 6:30 pm

Sunday supper

View Calendar

Recent Posts

  • Tack Room to get expanded outdoor patio May 15, 2025
  • Legal notice: Select Board public hearing (Cellco) May 15, 2025
  • Legal notice: Select Board public hearing (Goose Pond) May 14, 2025
  • News acorns May 13, 2025
  • Wentworth named acting chief of police May 13, 2025

Squirrel Archives

Categories

Secondary Sidebar

Search the Squirrel:

Privacy policy

© Copyright 2025 The Lincoln Squirrel · All Rights Reserved.