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

conservation

My Turn: Why you should vote yes on Question 6

By Andy Falender

Everyone in Massachusetts — no matter where we live — deserves clean drinking water and access to nature. This year, Massachusetts has an important opportunity to protect our rivers, lakes, forests, farms, and wildlife habitats by voting YES on Question 6 in the upcoming election.

Question 6, the Protect Water and Nature ballot initiative, would dedicate funds from the existing state sales tax on sporting goods to protecting and conserving water and nature.

That means as much as $100 million each year to protect clean drinking water; reduce pollution in rivers, lakes, and the ocean; conserve forests, family farms, and natural wildlife habitats; prevent flooding and storm damage; and create and improve parks, trails, and greenspaces for public use. Question 6 also creates a dedicated Nature for All Fund and requires strict public oversight and annual reporting so we can see exactly how every dollar is spent.

Nothing is more important than having clean drinking water and access to nature. By conserving natural areas, forests, and wildlife habitats, Question 6 will help reduce runoff in our lakes, rivers, and streams — protecting the quality of our drinking water and natural habitats for future generations. That’s why a wide coalition of 95+ organizations, including the state’s leading nonprofit land and water conservation groups, and many from underserved neighborhoods, are supporting a YES on Question 6 on the 2026 statewide ballot.

It’s time to permanently protect the places we love — clean drinking water, healthy forests and wildlife habitats, more trails and parks, and access to the outdoors and nature for everyone in Massachusetts. Vote YES on 6.

Falender lives on Page Road.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnians. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

More information — and questions — about strategies for library HVAC

Officials from several town boards, a consulting engineer, and dozens of residents convened at a multiboard meeting on Sept. 28 to share the latest proposals and try to answer questions from the public about the library HVAC system.

Not in question is the need to replace the 37-year-old gas-fired boiler before it fails. At issue is whether voters at the Oct. 24 Special Town Meeting will opt for a high-efficiency gas-fired boiler costing about $330,000 plus future significant expenditures to upgrade other pieces of the HVAC system, or a comprehensive geothermal ground-source heat pump system (GSHP) plus HVAC upgrades that would run on electricity rather than fossil fuels and thereby cut carbon emissions in keeping with Lincoln’s goal of eventually having town buildings be 100% green.

The GSHP-based system would cost an estimated $6.25 million, though the net cost to the town would be about $3.7 million after grants and tax incentives are factored in. Consultants have said that replacing the entire system with one based on a gas boiler would cost a total of about $3.32 million.

Community Preservation Committee Chair Eric Zimmerman confirmed this week that his group has agreed to finance up to $2.47 million of the total cost, which would push its debt service from 30% to about 46% of its expected annual revenue. The Finance Committee has recommended borrowing another $1.2 million through a 20-year bond that would be funded under the regular budget tax levy limit rather than a debt exclusion. In the short term, the stabilization fund would have to be tapped for another $1.55 million “until confirmation of expected incentives,” FinCom Chair Paul Blanchfield said. Neither the CPC nor the FinCom took a vote on recommending either option.

If voters reject the GSHP system and opt for a new gas-fired boiler, the questions then become:  (1) should the rest of the HVAC system be replaced in a  single comprehensive project, done in planned steps, or only when components fail, and (2) how much will that system cost in total, especially when considering inflation over the  years. 

“You can do it piecemeal, but you’ll definitely have to upgrade [the rest of the] system because the technologies have all become obsolete” in terms of building and safety codes, said Brandon Kelly, the town’s facilities director. On the other hand, although the rest of the system could certainly be replaced in a single project sooner, the cost is unknown at this point since it hasn’t been designed, Assistant Town Manager Dan Pereira said. 

“If voters reject the heat pump [option], I’m going to hear a clear signal that they’re worried about the cost of the project,” Select Board member Jim Hutchinson said. “We’d look for ways to reduce the project cost, which probably means reducing the scope of the conventional project.”

As with an aging car, residents must decide next month whether “it’s worth fixing the transmission knowing you’re going to have to keep putting in money, or invest now when you have [green energy] incentives,” Blanchfield said. “More to the point is where the town wants to spend the dollars and how much value they put in having a more green solution that’s 9% more expensive than a full traditional system.”

Also unknown is how much inflation and future savings due to improved technology or other factors will affect the cost of a traditional system, either step-wise or all at once, he added.

If voters opt for the conventional boiler next month, the town could draw up a budget for design and construction (or perhaps just design) for the rest of a new conventional system in time for a vote at Annual Town Meeting in March 2027, Town Administrator Tim Higgins said. According to a spreadsheet linked from a Sept. 11 memo by Pereira, an in-kind conventional system would cost $3.28 million and would save the town about $3,800 in energy costs, compared to about $2,200 for the GSHP system.

“Town officials need to be careful about saying that the heat pump option is only 10% more expensive,” resident David Cuetos said. He questioned several items in the budget, such as $1.71 million for overhead and other project-related costs, and $430,000 for American with Disabilities Act improvements — something that may not be required if the project doesn’t cross the threshold of having at least 30% of the building renovated or replaced and thus trigger state-mandated ADA upgrades, he said.

Cuetos also said that the gas boiler for Bemis Hall, which had to be replaced on an emergency basis last year, cost only about $41,000. Although the library has about 40% more floor space, “how can that [conventional] boiler be almost 10 times as expensive?”

Other residents at the meeting asked about the impact of the work on the rest of the library interior as well as its surrounding landscape and masonry foundation, which some worried could be damaged by vibrations from nearby well-drilling. The topic has also been the subject of discussion and debate online (LincolnTalk login required).

Bill Garbati with consulting engineering firm Energy Systems Group said the drilling will not cause any damage since the wells will be about 75 feet from the building and far enough away from the trees and irrigation lines to keep them intact. The interior mechanical spaces will not be enlarged, the interior ductwork and registers will be reused, and the rooftop air-conditioning condensers will be removed, he said. 

Officials are updating an FAQ document (a draft of which was available at the multi-board meeting) to address some of the questions that will be posted on the Special Town Meeting web page. Future information sessions on the topic will be hosted by the Select Board (Monday, Oct. 5 at 6:30pm) and the Green Energy Committee (Tuesday, Oct. 13 at 8:00 a.m.), and at the State of the Town meeting on Oct. 24 at 9:45am before the Special Town Meeting at 10:30am.

Cost estimate for ‘green’ library HVAC system rises

The latest numbers for the library HVAC system are in, and the estimated price tag for the decarbonization option with a ground-source heat pump (GSHP) system has gone up by $1.2 million since January. However, the cost to the town would be only about $373,000 more than a conventional gas-fired full replacement system if tax incentives and grants are factored in.

Replacing only the gas-fired boiler would cost about $330,000, though the rest of the HVAC system is near the end of its life as well, officials say.

The GSHP option is now estimated to cost a total of $6.25 million, partially offset by $2.55 million in anticipated incentives and grants, including a $1 million grant already approved, resulting in a net cost of about $3.70 million, vs. an updated estimate of $3.32 million for a conventional system. “Because this option does not receive the same decarbonization incentives, the gross and net project costs are effectively the same,” Assistant Town Administrator Dan Pereira wrote in a Sept. 11 memo that the Select Board discussed last week.

“While the town expects to receive additional incentives under the Eversource/MassSave program, the value of those incentives will not be known until the town undertakes further technical analysis with Eversource,” he added. 

When it comes to energy use and emissions, the GSHP option clearly wins out. “Compared with the actual utility baseline, the ground source heat pump option is projected to reduce total annual energy use by approximately 657 MMBtu [million British thermal units]. By comparison, the conventional replacement option is projected to reduce total annual energy use by approximately 104 MMBtu,” according to Pereira’s memo.

The ground source heat pump option would also eliminate on-site natural gas use for the library HVAC system. “As a result, when compared against actual utility baseline, the ground source heat pump option projects annual greenhouse gas emissions reductions of approximately 32 metric tons of CO₂e [carbon dioxide equivalent], compared with approximately 8 metric tons of CO₂e for the conventional option,” the memo says.

Board member Jim Hutchinson noted that there would probably be only a small savings in annual operating costs for the GSHP option. “We need to know the difference between the operating cost of the current system and a new one,” he said. “If we’re going for sustainability, that’s an obvious win,” though not necessarily for operating costs.

Multiboard meeting

There will be a multiboard meeting on Monday, Sept. 28 at 6:30pm to discuss the issue in advance of the Oct. 24 Special Town Meeting where residents will be asked to choose one of the options. The Select Board expects to get more information from the Finance Committee and possibly the Green Energy Committee on energy usage for the two systems.

The town originally planned to have a vote at Annual Town Meeting in March 2026 on the two options, but the motions were tabled after officials found that the expected tax incentive estimates were “too optimistic.” But as of this week, “that’s an area we feel much more confident about,” Town Administrator Tim Higgins said.

If voters opt for the ground source heat pump system, the additional $1.2 million would come from some combination of the town’s stabilization fund and Community Preservation Act funds. The CPA fund was already expected to bear the cost so as to avoid a tax increase.

My Turn: Lincoln Green Energy Choice updates

By Paul Shorb*

The Lincoln Green Energy Committee (GEC) wants to (1) share good news about current pricing and (2) advise you of proposed changes to the Lincoln Green Energy Choice program.

Pricing news

Good news! Lincoln Green Energy Choice prices are lower than Eversource’s new residential Basic Service price in effect August 1 through January 31, 2027, which is 17.323 cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh). The three tiers you can choose from in the Lincoln Green Energy Choice program are 15.409 c/kWh for Lincoln Standard Green (the default option), 16.119 c/kWh for Lincoln 100% Green, and 13.731 c/kWh for Lincoln Basic. For more information, go to LincolnGreenEnergyChoice.com.

(click image to enlarge)

The current program

Lincoln Green Energy Choice, which was instituted by the town in 2021, is a group electricity purchasing program for Lincoln residents and businesses in the town of Lincoln. The program gives electricity customers an alternative to Eversource’s Basic Service and to other electricity supply offers in the marketplace. Participants receive long-term, stable and historically competitive electricity supply prices. Participants are free to change their tier or even leave the program at any time at no charge, and there are no unexpected rate changes.

The program has supported regional renewable energy development by purchasing Class I Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) beyond what is required by state law. We believe this has worked to speed up “greening the grid” and thus reduce the burning of fossil fuels that drives climate change.

Changed circumstances

However, due to changes in federal policy and possible state actions as explained below, the effectiveness of buying extra Class I RECs to help mitigate climate change has become less certain. In short, at least for the next few years, voluntarily buying extra Class 1 RECs is no longer expected to drive more investment in building new renewable energy generation; instead, it will increase “Alternative Compliance Payments” from electric utilities such as Eversource and electricity suppliers. Traditionally, those payments have been used to fund the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, which in turns funds a wide range of good decarbonization projects. However, recently the Governor has twice redirected some of those funds away from climate-benefitting projects and towards ratepayer relief, which could happen again.

In response to these developments, the GEC has proposed that the Select Board consider a different approach to using the Lincoln Green Energy Choice program to reduce our community’s carbon emissions. Specifically, instead of buying extra Class 1 RECs, the program could invest more directly in decarbonization projects in Lincoln and/or elsewhere. Implementing a new approach will require a vote at the March 2027 Town Meeting. Well in advance of that vote, we will invite public comment on a proposal.

The GEC always welcomes community input, including by attending GEC meetings, which are held virtually on select Thursdays at 8:00 AM. Meeting links and agendas can be found on the town website.

Current options for program participants

The Select Board and GEC encourage residents to join, or stay in, the Lincoln Green Energy Choice program. As shown in the graphic above, currently the rates of all three tiers of the program are less expensive than the Eversource basic rate; over the past five years, the program has saved Lincoln ratepayers over $850,000.

For those residents who would like to stop paying for additional Class 1 RECs until the new program structure is in place, Lincoln Basic is the most cost-effective option. You may also choose to leave the program entirely, but at current Eversource rates, doing so would increase your electricity rate. If you do move to Lincoln Basic, we hope you will change back to Lincoln Standard Green or Lincoln 100% Green when the new approach to decarbonization debuts next year.

To learn more about the program, including how to change your level of participation, visit www.masspowerchoice.com/lincoln.

* Shorb is writing on behalf of the Lincoln Green Energy Committee.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnians. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

My Turn: Befriending our landscapes and rethinking summer health

By Annamaria San Antonio (Jai Kaur)

August is National Wellness Month, but what is the point of celebrating wellness nationally if we ignore the root of the word “national”? A nation is fundamentally the land — our shared outer terrain, which directly mirrors our inner bodily terrain. True wellness requires us to care for both, yet a growing cultural paranoia is driving us to treat our environments as battlegrounds to be sterilized rather than ecosystems to be befriended. When we recognize that our internal vitality is deeply interconnected with the health of the earth, we shift our mindset from knee-jerk panic to mindful, proactive stewardship.

To underscore why it is critical to become aware of what is moving in and around this shared land, we can look at two events that recently occurred right outside my door at our historic Codman Estate in Lincoln.

Last month, I witnessed a contractor spraying pure glyphosate to kill poison ivy along our stone walls. It was a windy morning, setting up the perfect condition for chemical mist to drift toward our community organic farm, where local children play and neighbors walk their dogs. Pesticide and herbicide drift accounts for up to 25% of an applied chemical becoming airborne. Because I advocate for reducing our reliance on synthetic chemicals, I wrote a firm, fact-based email to management laying out the science of chemical drift, gut microbiome destruction, and soil biology. The very next day, management permanently banned chemical herbicide applications across the entire property.

Two days later, during a summer gathering, a bumblebee stung an elderly guest twice. Instead of panicking or running for a chemical spray can, I used ice packs to handle the external heat and an internal homeopathic remedy to soothe the swelling. By the end of the evening, she experienced no pain (or hard feelings!).

These two events highlight a major cultural dilemma: how proactive are you when it comes to reducing the hidden disruptors in your own environment? The hard truth is that man-made toxicants are monumentally harder to get out of our bodies than they are to get into them. While biological toxins like a bee sting can be mobilized out of your tissues through standard circulation, exercise, and massage, clearing synthetic toxicants out of your cells is a far more complex process.

Reacting in blind fear to nature leads to a broader, systemic poisoning of our soils, plant life, and waterways.

When towns panic and order widespread aerial spraying for non-endemic risks, those chemicals settle into the food we eat and the water we drink. Heavy metals and lipophilic — or fat-loving — chemical compounds cross the blood-brain barrier over time, triggering mitochondrial damage and chronic inflammation. We must look past what chemical corporations or regulating boards deem as baseline “safe” and consult independent advocacy groups like the Environmental Working Group  to research what we allow into our homes.

The answer to environmental risk is absolutely not to retreat indoors, lock our windows, and hide from the world. In my practice, I notice a concerning trend of people pulling away from the natural world out of sheer anxiety. This hypervigilance has evolved past bugs into an avoidant fear of sweat, exercise, and even the sun. Complete sun avoidance leaves us severely Vitamin D-deprived, yet this vital hormone is monumentally beneficial for our immune systems.

Yes, being outside carries some risk. But the responsibility is on us to be educated and prepared, not to demand that nature be tamed so we feel secure. When we rush to use harsh chemical barriers in our yards, we try to kill a fly with a blowtorch, knocking out entire ecosystems in the process.

Mindful prevention is necessary, but sheer panic cuts us off from the exact nature medicine our nervous systems need. Step outside with confidence, arm yourself with a little natural education, and go enjoy the expansive peace that is waiting for you right outside your door.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnians. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Group releases first set of Dark Skies survey results

A Planning Board subcommittee has released the first batch of results from a townwide survey on outdoor lighting.

Around the time of the Town Meeting vote in March 2026 in which residents approved new restrictions on outdoor lighting to protect wildlife, the Lincoln Dark Skies Committee sent out the survey to better understand residents’ experiences with nighttime lighting and their preferences for future lighting practices in Lincoln.

The amended zoning bylaw establishes Dark Skies lighting standards for new construction and major renovations as well as new fixtures on existing buildings. It requires:

  • Shielding to direct all light toward the ground
  • A maximum light color temperature of 2700K (down from the current 3000K)
  • Limits on brightness (900 lumens)
  • New rules on hours of operation for lighting not associated with active use

The measured passed with a 195-48 vote, clearing the required two-thirds majority hurdle. Earlier in March, the Planning Board endorsed the proposed zoning amendment by a 3–1 vote, with board member Gary Taylor casting the only “nay” vote.

The first of three installments of the results of the survey, which garnered 268 responses, focuses on demographic information and opinions about outdoor lighting. Future installments will look at safety and technology.

The first batch of results indicates that respondents share the concerns of the committee. Almost 80% of respondents thought that having light on all night is not helpful, 90% thought having lights on all night impacts wildlife, and 71% thought having lights on all night does not make residents safer.

The majority also said from a neighbor’s property bothered them. Eighty precent or respondents said lights from neighbors were visible from their homes and 64% said they experienced “light trespass,” where artificial light spills beyond the intended property and into neighboring properties or natural areas. Additionally, respondents frequently identified institutional properties as sources of excessive lighting.

However, many who took the survey stressed that some outdoor lighting remains important to help prevent falls on uneven or icy surfaces, navigating long driveways, personal security when arriving home, and visibility around parking lots and transit areas.

The survey discussion also acknowledged that the study had several limitations. Participation was voluntary, meaning self-selection bias is possible, the report noted. Also, the findings were based on participants’ self-reported perceptions rather than objective measurements. “Consequently, the results should be interpreted as reflecting residents’ experiences and perceptions rather than direct assessments of lighting levels or environmental conditions,” the report said.

Options clarified on library HVAC system

Residents will vote at a Special Town Meeting on October 24 on two multimillion-dollar options for replacing the HVAC system at the Lincoln Public Library.

Officials from several boards met on July 13 and determined that either a ground-source heat pump system or a conventional HVAC system would cost $2.8 million to $3.1 million if green energy grants and tax incentives are included. 

The town originally planned to have a vote at Annual Town Meeting in March 2026 on two options, a $5.4 million green option (net cost: about $2.47 million) or $330,000 for a conventional boiler to replace the library’s aging gas-fired boiler. However, the motions were tabled after officials found that the expected tax incentive estimates were “too optimistic.”

Since then, officials got updated cost and tax incentive estimates from consultants. But they also realized that just replacing the boiler won’t be enough, because other work will be needed to match the upgrades and benefits included in the geothermal option (for example, the air conditioning system is just as old as the boiler). Once the upgrades to various other elements of the HVAC system and building envelope are included, the price tags for the two approaches are very similar. 

If the town were to opt for a conventional in-kind HVAC replacement option, the estimate from consultant ESG is approximately $2.85 million vs. Northeast Engineering’s estimate of approximately $2.66 million, both a bit lower than the March net cost estimate for geothermal. However, the net cost of a conventional system would rise to the level of the geothermal option because it would not qualify for a $1 million grant and green energy tax incentives.

“This option has a lower upfront cost than the ground source heat pump option, but it does not provide the same incentive opportunity, energy reduction, or decarbonization benefit,” Assistant Town Administrator Dan Pereira said in a July 9 memo to the Select Board, the library trustees, and the Green Energy, Finance, Capital Planning, and Community Preservation committees. 

Despite the apparent similarity in conventional vs. geothermal net cost estimates, FinCom Chair Paul Blanchfield urged his fellow officials to offer both options to voters rather than a yes-or-no vote on geothermal. He noted that the $130,000 difference between the two (assuming all green energy incentives are realized) rises to $1.5 million without incentives, which would translate to $67 vs. $770 in terms of the one-time impact on the median tax bill. However,  if the ground-source heat pump option is approved, it won’t result in an immediate tax increase because it will be paid from future Community Preservation Act funds.

While emphasizing that the FinCom has “has not necessarily deliberated or aligned on a position,” FinCom Chair Paul Blanchfield noted that Lincoln now has the third-highest median tax rate in Massachusetts after the school and community center projects. And while the town is adhering to its value of being environmentally conscious, “I would also note that no one has referenced the mission statement value of economic diversity,” he said. “The sentiment of the town is increasingly clear that they would prefer multiple options to consider.”

The fossil-fuel-free geothermal option will also require more electricity than a conventional system, which may not be entirely met by the solar array that will soon go online at the old landfill, though the Green Energy Committee may propose additional solar arrays on town land in the coming years.

Officials will be reviewing the updated operating cost analysis in the coming weeks. There will be several opportunities to learn more and ask questions before October 24, when the town will also host the State of the Town meeting. 

Town gets grant for climate-friendly library HVAC system

Lincoln has been awarded a $1 million grant from the state to support the full decarbonization of the Lincoln Public Library.

The town received the award as a result of being a Climate Leader Community (CLC), a designation it achieved in 2025 (there are now 35 CLCs in Massachusetts). Lincoln, Needham, and Wellesley are the second group to apply for and receive Decarbonization Accelerator Grants through the Mass. Department of Energy Resources (DOER). The program encourages municipalities to maximize the efficiency of buildings and transportation, slash energy costs, and lower municipal emissions.

The Lincoln library’s gas-fired boiler needs to be replaced, and town groups and officials have been researching how to upgrade the building’s HVAC system so in an environmentally sound way. They assembled a project plan and financing package including the expected $1 million grant, but consultants advised last spring that the projected tax incentives were “too optimistic.” A town-wide vote was postponed until a Special Town Meeting on Oct. 24 to allow more time for additional technology details and cost estimates.

In March, two tabled Town Meeting articles would have asked voters to approve a $5.4 million green project or, failing that, $330,000 for a conventional boiler. After the $1 million grant and $1.93 million in expected tax incentives, the cost to the town at that time was pegged at about $2.47 million. This would not have resulted in a tax increase; the amount was to be bonded with the debt paid from future Community Preservation Act funds.

The project includes the installation of ground source heat pumps and advanced heating and ventilation controls, along with building envelope improvements. When completed, the building will be fossil-fuel-free. Its annual energy use will cut by 800 MMBtus (million British thermal units) and 54 tons of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use will be eliminated, according to a DOER press release.

Board OKs trail easement; hears about Air Force Base study, more on trees

The Select Board earlier this month accepted a new trail easement near the transfer station and heard about a plan to study alternative uses for some of the Hanscom Air Force Base property, as well as more information on how and why the list of trees to be removed by Eversource was compiled.

A map showing the new trail easement east of Page Road (click image to enlarge).

Trail easement

The Select Board voted on June 8 to accept the trail easement plan proposed by the Rural Land Foundation and the Conservation Commission for the Farrington Memorial property. This plan grants two conservation restrictions and two trail easements to the town on land currently owned by Farrington Memorial Inc., which will be temporarily conveyed to Rural Land Foundation and then permanently deeded to City of Cambridge for water supply purposes. 

The easements (which are costing the town $850,000) and conservation restrictions will prevent future development on the land, including by a religious or educational organization. The measure was approved at a Special Town Meeting in June 2025 as part of Civico’s Farrington Nature Link project to build housing on land owned by the Panetta family just south of Route 2 and east of Page Road.

The trail will be open to hikers, and dogs may be walked on leash from September through June, as reported in the Select Board’s June SelectConnect e-newsletter.

Hanscom Air Force Base

The Secretary of the Air Force and the Gov. Maura Healey’s office are partnering to evaluate opportunities to save money by repurposing some of Hanscom Air Force Base’s for other uses that would benefit the surrounding community and the state. The Strategic Real Estate Opportunity (SREO) pilot study will “examine the ideal operational footprint for Hanscom AFB and explore opportunities to reduce recurring costs for the Air Force and unlock economic development opportunities for the Commonwealth,” according to an Air Force release.

Base housing, the Hanscom schools, MIT Lincoln Labs, and current military construction projects are not being reviewed as part of the scope of the study. 

“We’re looking at efficiencies… and the art of the possible,” Adam Freudberg, Executive Director of MassDevelopment’s Massachusetts Military Asset & Security Strategy Task Force, told the Select Board. For example, the federal government transferred ownership of Joint Base Cape Cod’s water and wastewater system to a private company in 2024, potentially making some of its capacity available to surrounding towns.

Hanscom is one of six military installations in the state and the only active-duty Air Force Base. There are no plans to close the base right now, according to Town Administrator Tim Higgins. “The stronger the mission is at the base and the better regarded it is within the military community, the better it can sustain a critical review,” he said.

Tree removal

DPW Superintendent Steve Olson and Eversource arborist Matt Mitchell explained the impetus and process by which they and Lincoln Tree Warden Ken Bassett settled on the final list of trees to be removed or pruned by the utility.

“By far this is the largest list we’ve proposed for Lincoln,” Mitchell acknowledged. The extensive list was drawn up because of Department of Public Utilities mandates for residential electricity reliability. Since 2023, one of two Eversource circuits in Lincoln has been “consistently performing poorly” in terms of how long power outages last, and tree damage is responsible for 83% of outages on that circuit, he said. 

The circuit covers almost half of Lincoln geographically around Trapelo Road, Lexington Road, Lincoln Road, South Great Road and nearby smaller roads. The average length of outages due to trees on that circuit is about 6.5 hours, compared to the Eversource state average of 3.5 hours, Mitchell said.

Faced with public protest over plans to remove some of the 271 trees on the original list, Bassett and a second arborist looked at every tree and eventually reduced the number of removals to 152, as well as 18 trees targeted for pruning. The work will take place over the summer.

Town to spare dozens of trees from removal by Eversource

Tree Warden Ken Bassett will present the finalized list of roadside trees slated for removal and explain the basis for his final determinations at the Select Board meeting on Monday, June 8 at 6:45 p.m.

Earlier this spring, Eversource submitted a list of 264 trees it proposed to remove because they were dead or in decline and posed a potential hazard to power lines and the roadway. But residents at an April 22 hearing asked the town to spare 181 of those trees, so the town extended the comment period into May to allow for more feedback and consideration. 

After compiling the list of trees whose removal residents objected to, Bassett said he and a third-party arborist, Jonathan Bransfield, “looked at each and every tree, to assess whether its condition was dangerous… In many cases we made a decision that [a tree] did not pose an imminent danger. Some were hard decisions but sooner or later those decisions had to be made.” Regarding the genreal criteria used by Eversource, “I think [Bransfield] felt they were reasonable,” he added.

The resulting final list calls for removal of only 146 trees, with another 19 pruned and 97 left as is. Many of the trees to be spared, at least for now, are on the other side of the road from the utility wires, are leaning but not in imminent danger of falling, or have cavities or seams (cracks) in the trunk.

The tree warden has an annual budget of about $8,000 and works with DPW to decide how to allocate those funds between planting new trees and taking care of existing ones, but usually it’s about half and half, Bassett said. Eversource will pay for replacing some of the removed trees, though what new trees will be planted and where are still to be determined.

“The purpose of the June 8 presentation is to provide transparency regarding the review process,” Town Administrator Tim Higgins said in a statement. “The Tree Warden welcomes feedback and discussion regarding the review process and the town’s ongoing efforts to balance public safety, electric service reliability, and stewardship of Lincoln’s trees.”