To the editor:
We are approaching a critical vote on the future of Lincoln’s school facilities. There is a long history of the various deliberations that have gone before. It is often difficult for people to become fully informed of what has gone before. As someone who has been involved for a very long time, I offer this Cliff Notes version of how we have come to the decision we face on June 9. Please become informed and come to vote.
Recent discussions on LincolnTalk and letters to the Squirrel pose numerous questions suggesting that a significant number of the commenters may be unfamiliar with the lengthy saga of efforts to address deficiencies in Lincoln’s K-8 school facilities. Many of the questions asked and the expert review requests made have been raised and addressed in in the past, but the complete record of the proceedings to date is voluminous, so it’s perhaps unreasonable simply to direct inquisitive citizens to plow through all of the documents on the subject available on the school and town websites. It may therefore be helpful to provide a short history of these efforts. For those of you interested in delving more deeply into the history, click here.
Let me say at the outset that I do not have a unique perspective on the school project proceedings, but I do have a lengthy one. I was the Selectmen’s representative on the original SBC, and eventually became co-chairman. Along with a few others, I represented Lincoln’s interests before the MSBA [Massachusetts School Building Authority]. Since then, I have served on every committee that has evaluated the options for addressing needs at the Lincoln Schools, and now am the Planning Board liaison to the SBC.
The story begins with the so-called 1994 renovation project. In the early 1990s, the town began considering renovation of the school facilities. Architects were retained to evaluate the physical plant and to come up with an improvement plan. Their original proposal would have remedied building deficiencies, added kitchen and dining facilities common in other schools, and connected the Smith, Brooks, and Reed Gym buildings. The cost was estimated at just above $22 million.
Lincoln’s leadership, faced at the time with also building a new public safety building, sent the architects back to the drawing board to develop three options at a range of price points all significantly below the initial offering. These options were presented at Town Meeting, and the middle option, at less than $12 million, was selected.
This project obviously did not provide central dining room and kitchen or the link to Reed. It also did not address some of the glaring deficiencies identified by the architects, such as the below-grade heating system boilers in the Smith building that periodically flooded (and have on occasion been under more than 50 inches of water). Many people have interpreted the 1994 project as a complete rehabilitation of the facility, but this is simply not the case. Portions of the building needing attention remained untouched.
Because the 1994 project left a lot of needs unmet, it wasn’t long before the schools were seeking annual capital infusions to ameliorate them. In 2003, Lincoln’s Capital Planning Committee concluded that a piecemeal approach might not be the best way to deal with facilities issues and asked the School Committee to take a more comprehensive approach.
This led to studies by two architectural firms in 2004 and 2007 which identified significant facility needs. The latter of these, by [current consulting school architect] SMMA, developed a range of options running from simple repairs at $35 million to a significant rebuild at $65 million. By this time, legislation establishing the MSBA was passed, and the possibility of state funding arose. Lincoln took the opportunity to make an application to participate in the process.
Lincoln was on of 21 schools selected from among 238 applications to start the MSBA feasibility study process. This involved a rigorous review of the condition of Lincoln’s facilities and how they matched up with both the school’s educational program and MSBA standards. This turned out to be a long and arduous process because Lincoln’s physical plant is so far beyond the norm for peer K-8 facilities in terms of size and number of classrooms, having two gyms and a large auditorium complex (needed for annual TM)—unusual in K-8 schools.
The MSBA staff questioned everything in terms of educational and facility needs, and we pushed them way beyond their normal boundaries in terms of time and effort, taking twice as long as normally allowed. Ultimately we reached an accommodation and got very favorable reimbursement rate—44 percent of qualifying facilities and 42 percent of the overall cost, a better rate than most projects in surrounding towns.
The Preliminary Design Plan approved by MSBA had an estimated cost of $61.3 million. Scope reduction and value engineering in the development of the subsequent schematic design process cut the cost from $61.3 million to $49.9 million. With the MSBA contribution of $20.9 million, the cost to Lincoln taxpayers would have been $29 million.
Because of concerns about the cost of the project, Lincoln’s Finance and Capital Planning Committees commissioned an independent study of potential repair approaches. The resulting Maguire Report confirmed that there was no cheap way out of the problems on the school campus. It concluded that the best approach to repairs needed within 10 years would cost $33 million (in 2013 dollars) and yield little educational benefit.
In the end, the effort went for naught. Town Meeting in 2012 failed to muster the required a two-thirds vote to bond the MSBA-approved project. Lincoln applied three more times, but the MSBA bureaucracy, once burned and with many other applicants, turned Lincoln down. Lincoln is not barred from participation, but our chances of being admitted again are slim, as the MSBA can legitimately question whether or not Lincoln can effectively organize support. Town Meeting in 2017 thus decided to go it alone without MSBA participation.
So here we are, years later, facing the same basic problems, but with no MSBA support. Again, two major capital projects are looming, but we seem wisely to have agreed to sequence them. The question before residents is, how much can we responsibly spend on the schools? People’s opinions can vary, but there is no question that, at minimum, there will need to be a major investment.
MSBA evaluators, trying to pinch every penny, agreed to this fundamental need. Four different architectural firms have also agreed. All these professionals and Lincoln’s own Capital Planning Committee have favored a single, comprehensive project over serial, remedial repairs. The current Finance Committee has recently added its weight in favor of a comprehensive approach.
With years of cost escalation in a booming construction market, essential repairs will cost on the order of $49 million. The only question remaining for Lincoln residents is how much we are willing to invest in the educational enhancements that our own educators, and education professionals elsewhere, believe would benefit Lincoln’s school community, both students and teachers.
Sincerely,
Gary Taylor
2 Beaver Pond Rd.