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

community center*

Letter to the editor: CCPPDC offers updates

letter

To the editor:

“Community Center Preliminary Planning and Design Committee”—with a name like that, we can’t help but succeed in our mission to bring a preliminary design to the town for consideration when discussing the current state of and future goals for the Ballfield Road campus. The townfolk spoke and the town representatives heard you: there should be collaboration between any and all committees striving to improve the nature and service of the Ballfield Road buildings.

But let’s start with introductions. Your CCPPDC members are Owen Beenhouwer, Sarah Chester, Doug Crosby, Jonathan Dwyer (for the Board of Selectmen), Steve Gladstone, Margit Griffith (vice chair, Parks and Recreation Commission), Eric Harris, Ellen Meyer Shorb (chair), Dilla Tingley, Town Administrator Tim Higgins, Director of Council on Aging Carolyn Bottum, and Director of Parks and Recreation Dan Pereira.

We have been tasked with providing the town with a community center design on the Ballfield Road campus in answer to the Lincoln community’s desire for a cohesive, cost-effective and community-spirited plan for Lincoln. We hope to provide enough information to help answer questions such as:

  • What is the realistic cost of a serviceable community center?
  • What does a community center do differently from other town spaces, and why is this important? (Much of this already addressed by prior studies, and we’re happy to review.)
  • Is it feasible and fiscally responsible to build the school and community center simultaneously or sequentially?
  • Can/should the same architect and/or construction company build both?
  • May the school and community center be built at the same time, or does the school need to keep current Hartwell buildings intact for alternate classrooms during the school build? Or are there other factors?

…and we hope to answer the questions you and we don’t know about yet!

The CCPPDC met a few times over the summer and has opened the request for quotes from architectural firms to work with us, reviewed their quotes, and is scheduling interviews. Our next step will be to choose a firm with which to work and to introduce them to you, the School Building Committee (SBC) and the architect they have chosen (if different)… which leads to a first response to the question “can we use the same architect?”

Well, yes and no. School buildings are very specialized structures and the architectural firms who design them tend to be quite focused on just that type of building. An architectural firm that promises they can do anything from a storage shed to a 20-story building probably isn’t the firm we’re hoping will design our next school building. Similarly, community centers tend to be a bit of a different creature and some firms make these designs their specialty. The SBC and CCPPDC have made it very clear to all parties that this is a collaborative effort by our two groups and we are requiring similar collaboration if the selected firms are different.

You will be hearing from the CCPPDC as we progress. You are always welcome to attend our open meetings and we hope to have a few community feedback events as plans develop. We will be at the SBC visioning meetings on October 3 and 17—will you? Once a month, a joint update will be provided by the SBC and CCPPDC, and you will likely see brief updates about one committee in the updates from the other. We’re also working on a CCPPDC page on the town website and hope to make more informative very soon.

Sincerely,

Margit Griffith on behalf of the CCPPD

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Group aims to keep two building project committees aligned

The Campus Coordinating Group (CCG), which met for the first time on September 7, will begin work on an overarching timeline that lays out joint milestones and public workshops and charrettes for the Community Center Preliminary Planning & Design Committee (PPDC) and the School Building Committee (SBC).

The CCG was formed so the members of the two groups working on planning for a school project and a community center can keep each other up to date on their progress. It includes three members of the SBC (Superintendent Becky McFall; Chris Fasciano, chair; and Craig Nicholson) and three members of the PPDC (Tim Higgins, town administrator; Ellen Meyer Shorb, chair; and Owen Beenhouwer).

The next meeting of the CCG is Thursday, Sept. 14 at 7:30 a.m. in McFall’s office (second floor of the Hartwell building). After that, the group will meet at 7:30 a.m. on Thursday mornings every other week. All meetings are open to the public.

Community center, school group both seeking more residents

The School Building Committee (SBC) is seeking volunteers for an Outreach sub-committee. The Outreach Team’s focus is to communicate SBC updates and key community forum details, but also to warmly welcome community input in all our outreach messages and encourage engagement from our residents. The time commitment of our committee members will vary and depend on the role the volunteer chooses, for there are many. Please volunteer if you…

  • Are interested in acting as a neighborhood “captain” to ensure SBC communications reach your neighborhood
  • Would like to be involved in hosting coffees or small group community sessions
  • Have an expertise in updating and managing website content
  • Have an expertise in photography or videography
  • Would like to be involved in communicating community forum details and listening sessions to encourage greater community engagement.

If you’d like to volunteer or just learn more about this subcommittee, please email SBC@lincnet.org.

Community center panel

Selectmen are still seeking candidates to serve on the CCPPDC who have experience in fields that are relevant to the committee’s work, such as architecture, planning or design, project management, or community engagement. There will be four at-large community members on the committee. More information on the committee’s duties can be found here.

Those interested should send letters of interest (mentioning relevant experience) to the Board of Selectmen via email to at ElderP@lincolntown.org by Friday, June 2. The board will appoint members of the CCPPDC at its meeting on June 12. The committee will hold its first meeting the following week and will present public updates (including at the fall 2018 State of the Town meting). If possible, there will be a final report and/or town vote at the spring 2018 Town Meeting.

Town seeks members for new community center planning group

The Board of Selectmen is seeking volunteers for the new Community Center Planning and Preliminary Design Committee (CCPPDC) to fill the roster by June 12 after approving the charge to the committee on May 8.

Residents approved $150,000 at Town Meeting in March to commission a feasibility study and draft design for a community center to be located on the Hartwell side of the school campus. The facility will meet the needs of the Parks and Recreation Department, and the Council on Aging as well as other town groups. The CCPPDC will work closely with the newest School Building Committee (SBC), which held its first meeting on May 3.

Selectmen are seeking four community members to serve on the CCPPDC who have experience in fields that are relevant to the committee’s work, such as architecture, planning or design, project management, or community engagement. Those interested should send letters of interest, mentioning relevant experience, to the Board of Selectmen via email to at ElderP@lincolntown.org by Friday, June 2.

The board will appoint members of the CCPPDC at its meeting on June 12. The committee will hold its first meeting the following week and will present public updates (including at the fall 2018 State of the Town meting). If possible, there will be a final report and/or town vote at the spring 2018 Town Meeting.

As its long name implies, the CCPPDC has limited scope, selectmen said. If and when the town chooses to move forward with a community center project, the committee’s preliminary design and cost estimate would be developed by a community center building committee.

The duties of the CCPPDC will include:

  • Gathering stakeholder input, and plan regular communication with and input from relevant town boards, committees, and the community.
  • Hiring a design firm to develop preliminary design plans and provide detailed cost estimates. Selectmen and the School Committee hold out the possibility that one firm could be hired to support both the school building project and the community center process.
  • Developing a detailed program of activities that would take place in a new community center and an assessment of space requirements and optimal adjacencies for the program
  • Evaluate several previously identified community center building locations within the Hartwell area, and any others that may be identified, and develop a preferred building location and supporting Hartwell campus site plan. This will require close coordination with the SBC, particularly with respect to things like future plans for the after-school program, the school’s shop area, any changes in use at the Hartwell main building, parking demands, any reorientation of the Ballfield Road roadway network or playing fields, the possible use of the pods as swing space during school construction, potential shared space opportunities, etc.

“Options for the community center must pair logically with options for the Lincoln School project to ensure all current and desired functions of the campus are included in the overarching plan for the campus,” according to the CCPDC charge.

As with the SBC, membership on the CCPPDC will entail many hours, hard work, and complicated conversations, but also offers a unique and exciting opportunity to participate in the creation of a central piece of the community and the future of the town, selectmen noted. Anyone with questions about the responsibilities and expectations of committee membership should send email before the deadline to the e-mail address above.

The PPDC will also include representatives from the Board of Selectmen, Council on Aging, Parks and Recreation Committee, Planning Board and Finance Committee. Selectmen are encouraging additional boards and committees such as the Conservation Commission, Green Energy Committee, Historical Commission, parent organizations and the Disabilities Commission to appoint liaisons to the CCPPDC.

Roundup of further Town Meeting results

Editor’s note: see these previous Lincoln Squirrel articles for previous Town Meeting coverage:

Voters at Town Meeting approved measures aimed at increasing affordable accessory apartments, allowing the Board of Selectmen to change speed limits under certain conditions, temporarily banning marijuana establishments, and allowing commercial farming on smaller properties—but proposed regulations banning some sales of plastic water bottles and plastic grocery bags were tabled.

Affordable accessory apartments

Approved revisions to the accessory apartment bylaw will now allow affordable accessory apartments to be counted in the town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI). A second vote (pending legislative approval) authorized a property tax exemption for the portion of a home being rented out as an affordable accessory apartment.

The changes bring the town’s bylaw into line with the state Department of Housing and Community Development’s requirements on pricing, tenant income eligibility, affirmative fair housing marketing and tenant selection plan, and maintenance. Other requirements for qualifying as an affordable accessory apartment include a temporary deed restriction and a prohibition on renting to family members.

Currently, 10.9 percent of Lincoln’s housing units qualify as affordable. If that proportion drops below 10 percent in the 2020 census, developers could be allowed to bypass zoning regulations to build a major housing development that contains affordable units.

A related warrant article to property owners to borrow from Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds to pay for creating or renovate affordable accessory apartments was passed over. Housing Commission Chair Allen Vander Meulen said Monday that the loan program will still be offered, but at least initially, it turned out to be procedurally easier to use money from the Housing Trust rather than the CPA.

At the State of the Town meeting in November, Lincoln Housing Coalition member Pamela Gallup explained that the program was intended as an incentive to property owners. The program would offer a loan of up to $25,000 that would secured by a lien on the property but would not contingent on the homeowner’s income, and it would have to be repaid in full when the house is sold.

There are about 70 permitted accessory apartments with permits in town already, plus an unknown number without permits. Officials hope the tax exemption and loan program will tempt more people to register their existing affordable units and thus boost the town’s inventory.

Speed limits

Residents voted to accept the provisions of a new state statute that would allow the Board of Selectmen to set a 25-mph speed limit on local roads in areas of town designated as“thickly settled or as a business district.

“There are very few if any areas in Lincoln that are currently eligible, but that could change in the future,” said Selectman Peter Braun. “We recommend adding this capacity to the selectmen’s toolbag for future use.”

The original motion asked that the town “accept the provisions of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 90, Section 17C, in the interests of public safety and without further authority,” to establish the 25-mph speed limit as allowed by that statute. But after some debate about what specific powers the selectmen would have if the motion passed, officials amended the motion to delete everything after the statute citation, and it passed with a handful of nay votes.

Right to Farm bylaw

Owners of property measuring two to five acres may now keep farm animals (except pigs) for commercial agricultural purposes if annual sales are less than $5,000 per acre. Previously, commercial animal farming was permitted only on lots of five acres or more.

There was considerable debate about whether to remove language saying that the $5,000 monetary limit would not apply to off-site sales. Two voice votes on whether to approve the amendment itself were inconclusive, and a count of hands resulted in defeat of the amendment by a margin of 84 to 61. The original motion to change the bylaw passed by the required two-thirds majority with a scattering of nay votes.

Marijuana moratorium

Voters approved a moratorium on using land or structures for recreational marijuana establishments until November 30, 2018 pending new regulations from the Cannabis Control Commission and possible zoning amendments in Lincoln. Recreational marijuana establishments include marijuana cultivators, testing facilities, product manufacturers, or any other type of licensed marijuana-related business.

“This will give us time to work on it and figure out what we want to do,” Selectman Peter Braun said.

“This article is not well advised. Nobody can do it in Lincoln anyway” because of state licensing barriers and the high cost of land, said resident Jean Welsh, who said she takes medicinal marijuana pills to control pain from spinal stenosis. “It’s just not fact-based government. I’m very sensitive to governance based on emotion and not on fact.”

Plastic bottle and bag ban

In the wake of controversy over proposed bans on sales of individual-size plastic water bottles and retail use of disposable plastic grocery bags, officials before the meeting backed off from voting on the two measures. Instead, voters approved substitute motions that expressed support for the concerns raised by the Lincoln-Sudbury Environmental Club (which organized citizens’ petitions for the two measures) and urged the club to “continue to explore options, including the contemplated bylaws, in consultation with key Lincoln stakeholder groups.” Students will report at the State of the Town meeting in fall 2017 with possibility of presenting revised bylaws at the Annual Town Meeting in 2018.

“The route they’ve chosen to take today is exactly what the town clerk and town administrator suggested they consider,” said Selectman Peter Braun, citing ambiguities over how the bans would be enforced, as well as a lack of input from other groups including the Planning Board and the South Lincoln Planning Implementation Committee. “There’s a lot to talk about and think about… there’s room for a lot more of the Lincoln Way to occur.”

Owners of Donelan’s and Lincoln’s two new restaurants had voiced earlier opposition to the measures. “It’s a mistake to demonize bottled water,” which is clean and healthy, said Carol White, so-owner of Lincoln Kitchen and Trail’s End, adding that visitors would have difficulty finding places to refill reusable water bottles.

Residents debated the impact of a water bottle ban on business at Donelan’s. “If it’s make or break based on single-use plastic bottles, that store is in serious trouble,” said Sara Mattes. Others worried that a ban on water bottles will simply push customers to buy sugary drinks instead, with one person suggesting a ban on all plastic drink bottles.

Regarding plastic grocery bags, resident Andrew Young cited studies showing that the life cycle of paper bags actually results in more energy and well as its own form of environmental damage. “If you forget your reusable bags, plastic is actually the better choice,” he said.

Officials and several residents praised the students for their hard work and commitment, and their willingness to change course shortly before Town Meeting.

Capital Planning, Community Preservation spending approved

Voters approved a total of $441,760 in Capital Planning Committee (CapComm) expenditures and $740,936 for Community Preservation Committee (CPC) projects at the March 25 Town Meeting.

CapComm received 26 requests and recommended 14 of them for voter approval. along with three capital exclusions totaling $300,000 ($75,000 apiece for a bucket truck and dump truck and $150,000 for a community center feasibility study). Those three requests were approved at Town Meeting and Monday’s town election.

Among the requests not recommended by CapComm:

  • A new command vehicle for the fire chief ($47,000)
  • A school safety/security upgrade ($35,000 )
  • A library facility review ($13,750)
  • A speed display trailer for the Police Department ($1,500)
Capital projectCost
Instructional display and audio technology for schools$163,000
New marked police cruiser$45,185
New unmarked police cruiser$34,015
New operating
system for town IT servers		$30,000
New courier food
service van for schools		$29,000
Radio communications system for the DPW and Communications Department$25,055
Repair existing guardrail$25,000
Additional funds for a ramp and stairs at the end of
the Library Lane sidewalk		$20,000
Electronic vote tabulators$18,000
IT backup
system for town computer servers		$15,000
Replace library's public
access computers		$13,000
Design study for use of the library's first
floor		$10,000
Upgrade
Public Safety Building video recording system		$9,685
Two police cruiser radar units$4,820
Community Preservation requests

Four of the CPC projects totaling $40,000 are for work at the Pierce House (chimney repair, a new kitchen floor, renovated bathrooms, and exterior wood clapboard and trim).

The only item that provoked discussion was a $10,800 request by the library for historic preservation of an embroidered tapestry by Sophia Adams depicting her family register. Some residents questioned whether this was the best use of CapComm funds, but Planning Board Chair Margaret Olson said it was “a no-brainer when I saw it. It’s a very beautiful piece of town history.”

“It’s a rare opportunity for people of the town to see how important the history is of one of our families,” said library director Barbara Myles, noting that Adams made the tapestry as a Lincoln teenager in the early 1800s. Her family tree includes John Adams, the second president of the United States, and great-grandson Richard Adams Williams, whose widow, former Lincoln resident Cynthia Williams, donated the tapestry to the town.

“They really came back to us with a much sharper pencil,” said Chris Fasciano, chair of the CPC, in reference to the library’s original set of  historic preservation project requests. The slate of CPC requests was approved with only a couple of nay votes.

CPC funds come from a 3 percent property tax surcharge and a partial match from the state, and the fund replenishes annually by about $950,000. They may be used only for projects relating to historic preservation, conservation, recreation, or affordable housing.

Community preservation projectCost
Debt
service payment for town office building renovation project		$398,875
Debt service
payment on
Wang property acquisition		$135,500
Debt service payments on permanent
borrowing for previously voted CPA projects		$93,150
Housing reserve$55,257
Transfer to
Conservation Fund for open space		$40,000
Renovation of
two Pierce House interior bathrooms		$15,000
Preservation of
the Sophia Adams family register		$10,800
Replacement of Pierce House kitchen floor.$10,000
Replacement of Pierce House exterior wood clapboards and wood trim$10,000
Preservation of
the poll and estate tax assessments for 1861, 1863,
1864, and 1866 		$7,412
Preservation of
Lincoln School Records Box 7		$6,259
Preservation of Lincoln School Records Box 10$5,940
Restoration of Pierce House chimney$5,000
CPC administrative expenses$3,000

Voters give the go-ahead to school project and community center planning

(Editor’s note: Additional stories about the March 25 Annual Town Meeting will be published this week.)

Lincoln will move ahead with feasibility studies for both a locally funded school project and a community center as a result of votes at Saturday’s Annual Town Meeting.

Residents voted unanimously to release $750,000 that was put aside in 2015 for a new feasibility study that will lead to another town-wide vote a year from now on a specific project to pursue. The money was originally allocated for a project that specifically would have included state funding; in the wake of repeated denials from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, Saturday’s vote means the money can now be used for a project funded solely by the town.

As a result of the vote, residents passed over another warrant article that asked whether Lincoln should apply once again for MSBA funding. School officials have said that the chances of Lincoln getting invited into the funding pipeline again were extremely slim because the Lincoln School is not structurally unsafe or severely overcrowded.

“There seems to be a growing sense of community readiness to move forward,” School Committee Chair Jennifer Glass said. “This will also provide clarity for other decisions in town” such as the community center.

Glass and Finance Committee Chair Peyton Marshall reviewed information they presented at multi-board meetings on January 30 and March 8 about why a major school project is needed, how much it might cost, and the tax implications of various levels of borrowing to pay for it. Consultants Dore and Whittier said in 2014 that basic repairs and required code upgrades for safety and handicapped accessibility will cost at least $30 million.

“That’s a lot of money, but there really is no ‘do nothing’ option,” Glass said; that level of spending would result in a building that’s “safe, accessible, has better air and light, no leaks and comfortable temperatures” but has no other improvements. Depending on what additional options are chosen such as educational upgrades, cafeterias and site work pr even an entirely new school, the project could cost up to $68 million.

“The point of the feasibility study is to narrow [cost estimates] down to some number that we bring to the town, and the town votes on which one of these project concepts to we develop into a real project” at a vote in spring 2018. After that, detailed plans and costs will be finalized and the project will come up for a bonding vote perhaps as soon as Fall 2018, Glass said.

Asked by a resident whether the town could simply reuse the 2012 feasibility study, Glass said, “I recommend not doing that.” That study resulted in a plan that failed to win a two-thirds bonding majority in 2012 for various reasons, including cost and the layout of the new school building and campus. This time around, residents will have a chance to choose form one of two or three design concepts before the funding is put to a vote.

The silver lining of the 2012 defeat is that “we’ve learned some things since then—how to be even more creative with spaces in the building and a sense of how the campus maintains a feeling that everyone is happy with,” Glass said.

Community center vote

With only a handful of “nay” votes, residents also voted to spend $150,000 for a feasibility study for a community center to house the Council on Aging and the Parks and Recreation Department as well as other town groups. A 2015 report by the Community Center Study Committee and its consultant said that a two-story, 22,000-square-foot facility on the Hartwell side of the school campus would cost about $13 million.

The $150,000 appropriation must also win a simple majority at the March 27 town election to move forward.

The feasibility study would result in a conceptual site plan and an updated cost estimate, but there is no timeline for when construction might start. However, the school and community center building committees and architects would work closely together to coordinate planning for the two projects as much as possible. This collaboration would ensure that a community center “can be added to the campus at the right time and in the right location and configuration,” and its construction would “follow at a time that is fiscally responsible,” Selectman James Craig said.

Asked if the two building committees would join to hire a single architect, “the answer is a big maybe,” Glass said. Such a firm would need to have expertise in both types of projects “and they’d have to be a good fit for our endearing and occasionally idiosyncratic town. “If two different firms are used, town and school officials can make collaboration between those firms “a foundational requirement for getting hired,” she said.

Several residents recommended combining the feasibility studies as well as using a single architectural firm. Staff members at a school and community center provide many of the same teaching and counseling functions, said Doug Swain. “Their educational and quality-of-life goals for people in the town of Lincoln are exactly the same and their building needs are almost identical.”

A completely shared space isn’t possible because of state regulations designed to limit access to school children by non-school staff.

Resident Ken Hurd, an architect, said he supports both projects but was not in favor of developing separate schematic drawings for the school and community center. In talking to other architects and engineers, “most of them think this is a bad idea to have two teams working in parallel in trying to master-plan a [campus] site,” he said.

“We really need to hire one architect with two teams in its firm, as well as a good land architect. This is a site and campus planning exercise as well,” said resident Owen Beenhouwer, also an architect. Any firm that’s qualified to design a school “will have more than ample experience in dealing with a smaller building as well.”

“Nothing is off the table in terms of the firm” to be hired, Craig said. “The goal is to have these [projects] be in concert with each other.”

Moving forward, planning for the community center will include refining the exact needs of the COA and PRD in terms of their programming and space usage, as well as considering future uses for Bemis Hall.

Cost implications

Right now, Lincoln is in a good borrowing position compared to other area towns in terms of property tax rate growth and its debt-to-operating-budget, Marshall said. The town could borrow up to $80 million to pay for school and community center projects without endangering its AAA bond rating, he said.

Assuming a 30-year bond at an interest rate of 5 percent and the current median property value of $972,200, the maximum annual average tax increase during the repayment period would range from $929 (for a $30 million bond) to $2,478 ($80 million). The median taxpayer would see a hike of $275-$310 per year for every $10 million the town borrowed, according to page 11 of his handout. The median property tax bill in fiscal 2018 is $13,613.

Recap of background stories for Town Meeting

In preparation for the March 25 Town Meeting, the Lincoln Squirrel is publishing an updated and expanded expanded recap of news stories and letters to the editor on some of the issues to be voted on. The full warrant list can be found here.

Wang property acquisition (article 11)

News stories:

Letters to the editor:

Accessory apartments (articles 12-14)

News stories:

Letters to the editor:

School project (articles 33 and 34)

News stories:

Letter to the editor:

Community center feasibility study (article 35)

News stories:

Letter to the editor:

Landfill solar initiative (article 36)

News stories:

Letter to the editor:

Agricultural bylaw amendment (article 38)

News story:

Water bottle/plastic bag ban (articles 41 and 42)

News stories:

Letters to the editor:

Letter to the editor: vote yes on community center feasibility study

letter

To the editor:

The warrant for the  Annual Town Meeting on March 25 includes an article to approve $150,000 to fund “a feasibility study and preliminary design development plans for a community center to be located within the Hartwell Complex of the Ballfield Road school campus.” If funding for a school project feasibility study is approved, the board of the Lincoln Council on Aging and the Parks and Recreation Committee recommend approval of the community center article at both Annual Town Meeting and the town election to be held on Monday, March 27. The benefits to all residents of Lincoln in funding feasibility studies for both the school and community center projects are many, and include:

  • Funding feasibility studies for both projects assures that planning will be done jointly, and therefore will take into account the needs of both projects most efficiently.
  • Beginning the process for a community center project now will save the town money in the long run. Multiple committees have determined that both the Council on Aging and Parks and Recreation need significantly improved facilities and construction costs will only increase over time.
  • The community center will provide all residents with attractive space for programs and activities they already enjoy as well as new ones, with enough parking that is a reasonable distance, and that is fully accessible. This includes:
    • Adults and children who participate in Parks and Recreation programs
    • Seniors who attend COA programs and use COA social services
    • Members of community organizations who will hold meetings and programs in the community center
    • Residents of all ages who need confidential health and social services
    • All members of the community who would like to participate in fun and community-building activities like community suppers and townwide fairs, and
    • Anyone who would like a place to gather to socialize with others in a relaxed, welcoming place.
  • A community center in the Ballfield Road area, along with the schools and athletic fields, would enhance Lincoln’s sense of community by providing one place for formal and informal opportunities for residents from many generations and a diversity of interests to come together to get to know one another and feel a part of a vibrant and welcoming town.

The reasons for supporting a community center are as many and as individual as each town resident. What would you like a community center to do for you?

Sincerely,

Lincoln Council on Aging Board
Lincoln Parks and Recreation Committee

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Officials offer school recommendations, borrowing estimates

Saying “we believe it’s time to act on our own,” School Committee Chair Jennifer Glass outlined next steps for a town-funded school project at a multi-board meeting earlier this week.

Glass told the Board of Selectmen last month that her group recommended not applying again for state funding, but start the planning process for a school project that the town would pay for by itself. At the multiboard meeting, she explained the committee’s reasoning, while Finance Committee Vice Chair Jim Hutchinson outlined some funding and property tax scenarios.

There will be two warrant articles at Town Meeting next month—one on whether to spend a previously approved $750,000 on a town-funded school feasibility study, and another on whether to reapply for state funding—but “we see that as a fork in the road, an either/or choice,” Glass said. The increased competition for state grants and the immediate needs of the Lincoln School from both facilities and educational standpoints mean that waiting any longer is not the best option, she said.

Previous meetings and votes indicate that there is community consensus on four points:

  • The education value of a school project is a top priority
  • Residents understand that the town will have to spend a minimum of $30 million for a “responsible project”
  • There is “strong support” for a project that would cost $45 million to $60 million even without state funding
  • There is interest in planning collaboration for a school project and community center

The cost estimates were provided by Dore and Whitter in their report in late 2014. At that time, they outlined three groups of renovation and construction options and price ranges:

  • 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 new feasibility study process would again outline the school’s needs, the town’s educational and community vision and building options, as well as an eventual a decision on one option to put forward for a town vote. The Dore & Whittier report did some of this but did not include faculty input, nor did it address the overall site plan in terms of roadways, athletic fields, etc., Glass noted.

Borrowing costs

Although construction costs have climbed since 2014, interest rates have remained steady, Hutchinson said. The Finance Committee has consulted with bond advisors and concluded that the town can borrow up to $80 million without losing its AAA bond rating, which affects future borrowing costs. That level of borrowing would drive the town’s debt-to-operating ration from the 3-4% range up to 12-13%, he said.

To soften the tax impact, the Finance Committee recommends additional steps such as repaying the bonds over 30 years rather than 20. Also advisable is a “level debt” whereby annual payments would remain the same, though they would effectively decline as a percentage of revenue over time due to inflation, Hutchinson said. Although the town has a debt stabilization fund, spending all of it is not a good idea, because “there are always unanticipated things that happen to towns and we need to have some kind of buffer,” he added.

Another way to spread out the repayments would be to borrow for a community center and a school project separately “and put it in two lumps rather than one big lump,” Hutchinson said.

Voters at Town Meeting will be asked for a $150,000 appropriation for a feasibility study by a community center building committee that would work alongside the new school building committee. The Board of Selectmen would “mandate cooperation between the two,” Selectman Peter Braun said.

One advantage of not involving the MSBA is it frees the town from having to clearly separate design and planning for a school project and a community center, Glass noted.

Property tax impact

What does this mean for Lincoln taxpayers? Hutchinson did not have final estimates this week (the committee will present them at another multi-board meeting on March 8), but an earlier analysis that assumed a 4.6% interest rate and a more aggressive repayment schedule showed that tax bills would rise by $367 per year on a median-value home for every $10 million that the town borrowed. The median home value is $883,000, so someone with a home of that value would pay an additional $1,101 per year if the town borrowed $30 million, for example.

However, Hutchinson noted that interest rates are actually lower than the projected figure (about 3.4% right now), so the repayment cost would be lower than the example—more like $300 per $10 million borrowed, he said.

Even if the town decided on a “repair-only” direction, it would not be eligible for Massachusetts School Building Authority funding, Glass said. The MSBA has two grant programs: the core program and the “accelerated repair” program, which funds individual repair projects such as roofs and boilers. However, schools who get the second type of funding have no other major facilities or educational flaws aside from the isolated issue, and Lincoln does not meet that standard.

Other area towns have done town-funded school projects in recent years, including a new elementary school in Brookline and a replacement for the Zervas School in Newton. Lexington has done several projects, some with MSBA funding and some without. Wellesley has been turned down by the MSBA several times for a project that would consolidate three elementary schools into two and is also contemplating going it alone, Glass said.

One focus of debate is sure to be which major project to do first. The Council on Aging and the Parks and Recreation Department are advocating for a community center and have suggested that if it were built first, some of its space would be used by the school while staged school construction work was taking place.

But resident Ken Hurd disagreed. “My preference would be if the focus is really the school because this is what we need the most. We’re going to attract more people if we have the school situation resolved. A community center is nice is nice and we need it, but it’s not going to bring people to Lincoln,” he said.

“Town leadership should take a position on what the priorities should be,” said Steve Perlmutter, a member of the 2014 School Building Advisory Committee.