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

government

School option L3 wins the day

School option L3 (click to enlarge)

After almost a year of meetings, community forums, architectural work, and spirited debate, Lincoln residents voted to move forward with school concept L3 at a Special Town Meeting on June 9.

Consulting architects SMMA will now produce a schematic design with detailed specifications and an updated cost estimate. The current estimate for Option L3 is $93.9 million, including solar panels and other “net zero” energy use features. A two-thirds majority is required at a Special Town Meeting on December 1 to approve bonding for the project. There will also be a December 3 town-wide ballot that must win a simple majority for the project to advance.

On the first vote, which was conducted using paper ballots and voting machines (a first for a Town Meeting), 632 voters in the Brooks Auditorium and nearby gym weeded down the initial five options to three, with Option L3 gaining a majority already:

Number of votesPercentage
Option R274.3%
Option L1101.6%
Option L28513.4%
Option L335456.0%
Option C15625.7%

Option L3 won a substantial majority in the second round of voting:

  • Option L3 – 74%
  • Option C – 17%
  • Option L2 – 9%

Before turning to the school issue, the Community Center Preliminary Planning and Design Committee presented two possible design ideas for a community center on the Hartwell side of campus and asked residents to complete survey forms on which they preferred. That feedback will be part of the group’s final report to the Board of Selectmen in coming weeks.

The meeting opened with presentations about the five school options and their costs, the tax impacts of borrowing varying amounts, the conditions and repair work needed at the school, and a history of school project planning and construction since 1994, as well as recommendations from the Board of Selectmen, Capital Planning Committee, and Finance Committee (see links below).

Background:

  • A roundup of past Lincoln Squirrel stories and letters to the editor on the school project (updated June 10, 2018)

Town Meeting presentations:

The two community center options (click to enlarge)

Over the past year, the School Building Committee looked at 39 different school options before settling on five to present for the June 9 vote. A sixth option was rejected earlier as being beyond the town’s normal borrowing limit.

Much of the discussion before the votes centered on the educational benefits of hub spaces that would allow teachers to work with student of different sizes and more easily collaborate on teaching within a grade, vs. whether such spaces were worth the added cost.

Dozens of residents stood in line at microphones to ask questions and make a case for their choices before the votes. A sampling of those remarks:

  • “I’m a huge proponent of Options L3 and C… but L3 is probably a compromise,” said Jen Holleran, member of a Lincoln educators group.
  • Option L3 would put Lincoln “in the middle of the pack for residential tax rate,” said Ginger Reiner. “What we are experiencing as a giant leap in taxes is just recalibrating to bring us more in line with our neighbors. We’ve enjoyed lower than average taxes by essentially borrowing against our future selves; we’ve artificially suppressed our taxes and it’s time to pay that debt… Option L3 is the perfect intersection of the town’s values.”
  • “Our kids are doing all right,” said Carolyn Montie, noting the top-tier colleges that many Lincoln School graduates have attended. “All options are viable… but putting those resources to direct services to students would result in a better outcome.”
  • “Every dollar put into the school made real estate prices rise by $1.50” compared to similar towns that didn’t do a major school project, said Ben Shiller, assistant professor of economics at Brandeis University, citing academic research. “The selfish decision is actually to choose one of the more expensive options.”
  • Lincoln’s master plan doesn’t mention an upgraded school but does call for continued investment in affordable housing, open space and conservation, and economic development, said Sharon Antia. “Where will we find the dollars for our stated priorities?”
  • Children today “have information at their fingertips—they don’t need to cram it all into their heads” in a traditional classroom setting, said D.J. Mitchell. “We need to [develop] collaborators, tinkerers, and problem solvers. Sometimes this requires larger spaces, multi-age groupings, teachers working across disciplines, quiet reflection and loud collaboration… we need to transform educational spaces for the 21st
    century.”
  • “We have a responsibility to honor the historical legacy of the Smith School, which was groundbreaking in its day,” said Christopher Boit. Option L2 “honors our commitment to net zero as well as a full kitchen and [the option of] collaboration at mealtimes… the difference in my education was not the buildings, it was the teachers.”
  • The hub spaces in Options L3 and C mean that children taken aside for individual or small-group instruction for any reason “are not stigmatized by being pulled into hallways,” said Cathy Bitter.
  • “We’re going to end up taking people out of this community because this is going to impact their taxes a lot,” said Daniela Caride. “In Lincoln, you go anywhere and you see three generations of people living here. [Other area towns] are generally bedroom communities. Do we want to be this kind of community? I’m still looking for an option here. We should be mindful of our neighbors who may get into trouble with all this cost.”
  • The tax increase from L2 to either L3 or C “sounds like a pretty good bargain,” said Cheryl Gray.
  • The increase between the higher-end options which is in the vicinity of $200-300 annually “is just one less trip to Donelan’s,” said Chris Gill.
  • “Some people are concerned that the price is still not optimal for what we’re getting, so I hope do some serious value engineering” between now and December,” said Steve Massaquoi.
  • “Given the total dollar amounts we’re talking about, I’m not that concerned” about the relative difference in tax hikes between the top two or three options, said Allen Vander Meulen. “But which of the plans do the teachers prefer?”
  • At the most basic level, consistent classroom temperature and lighting are the top priorities for teachers, Superintendent of Schools Becky McFall said in answer to Vander Meulen’s question. But since the new Hanscom Middle School opened, “they’re seeing the collaboration possibilities… the flexible grouping of students and targeted instruction… for either more intervention or more challenges.”
  • The presence of hubs in a school “affects our ability to attract good teachers big-time,” said Bob Shudy. Without hubs, many of the best young teachers “wouldn’t even consider” applying to work at the Lincoln School.
  • Option L2 “contains the reasonable minimum for facilities and teachers. I find the notion of adding hubs or flex spaces to be speculative,” said Adam Greenberg. “Education is changing much more rapidly than any snapshot you choose to pick today.”
  • Saying she hoped to persuade fans of both Option L2 and C to agree on L3, Lis Herbert said that L2’s concept of having only single flex spaces for Smith and Brooks is “deficient and doesn’t rise to the occasion” but that Option C reflects “a uniquely American desire for shiny, efficient new things. We often forget about what we have and what we can adapt to suit our needs… we literally pull up stakes and go west.”
  • “A difference of $10 million between L2 and L3 is significant,” said Diana Abrashkin. “There’s so much that could be done with $10 million in terms of teacher salaries, or more amenities in the actual buildings. The difference is the teachers, not the shape of the classrooms.”
  • Option L3 has a better distribution of hub spaces, while Option C has “a perfectly good gym moved from present location,” said Graham Atkinson.

New check-in procedure for Town Meeting

Election officers greeting residents arriving for the Special Town Meeting on June 9 will be using electronic Poll Pads to check in voters as they did for early voters in the 2016 election. Voters will not have to join a line according to the first letter of their last name but instead may go to any election officer at the check-in table.

The Poll Pad tablets will allow inspectors to check in a voter by manually entering the voter’s name, or by scanning the bar code on the back of his or her driver’s license. The Poll Pad matches the name and date of birth of the person on the voter list with the same information encoded on the license, but does not capture or store that information.

Once you’re verified as a registered voter, the checker will stamp your hand with a V and then give you a ballot and a Sharpie pen. 

Check in begins at 8:15 a.m. Check in early, then go for a walk or get a cup of coffee, but come back for a prompt 9:30 start.

Letter to the editor: a brief history of the school project

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.

Letter from the moderator #4: voting procedures on Saturday

Editor’s note: This is the fourth in a series of pieces by Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden about preparations and procedures for the Special Town Meeting on June 9. The other letters are here:

To the editor:

First, let me remind everyone that you must be a registered voter in Lincoln in order to vote at the June 9 meeting. 

As has been publicized, three votes are planned for the June 9 Special Town Meeting:

Vote #1: Ballot vote — Voters will indicate their first choice among the five school concepts.  These votes will be recorded on a ballot and counted by our tabulation machines.  The top three concepts will move forward to the second vote.

Before we take the second vote, I will provide a warning of approximately 15 minutes with a time certain for the vote so that voters can get into their seats for the count. At the announced time, the doors will be closed and no one else will be permitted into the gym or the auditorium. We must do this to ensure an accurate vote count.

Vote #2: Standing vote — Voters will be asked to stand up for the concept they support. The two concepts with the most votes will move on to the third vote.

Vote #3: Standing vote — Voters will be asked to stand up for the concept they support of the two remaining. The concept that gets the majority is the one that the SBC will develop and bring to a bond vote in December.

Questions have been raised about what will happen if one concept gets a majority of the vote after vote #1. This is a Town Meeting, and as moderator, I believe that it is important for the town to proceed to Vote #2, no matter the outcome of the first vote. The nature and importance of this meeting require that we obtain the town’s clear preference; with that in mind, we will move to the second vote.

I have also been asked what will happen if, after Vote #2, one concept has a slim majority. As has been publicized, the School Building Committee will move forward with whichever concept gets the majority, and if one concept receives 51 percent or more, we must respect that outcome. However, I will use moderator’s discretion in the event that one concept gets between 50 percent and 51 percent in Vote #2. If that is the scenario, I believe that in the long run it will better for the town if we proceed to Vote #3 between the two most popular concepts. 

These votes will be carefully recorded and the results announced. By the very nature of voting in a democracy, there will always be some who are disappointed. The importance of open and respectful questions and comments are therefore all the more important. From my perspective, I hope that we can leave the meeting feeling good about the way we conducted ourselves. 

Sincerely,

Sarah Cannon Holden, Town Moderator
Weston Rad

Letter from the moderator #3: rules for Saturday’s Special Town Meeting

Editor’s note: This is the third in a series of pieces by Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden about preparations and procedures for the Special Town Meeting on June 9. The other letters appear here and here.

To the editor:

By now you should have received your Special Town Meeting Warrant with the two aBy now you should have received your Special Town Meeting Warrant with the two articles to be considered on June 9th. There is very important background information. Please read it carefully so you can come as prepared as possible for the discussion and voting on Saturday. It contains the meeting’s agenda as well as overview of what we will need as we delve further into the issues, choices and considerations before us. Also included in the mailing is an explanation of the voting process. Read it carefully and bring it with you to the meeting. Please note that while there will be a presentation and update regarding the community center, there will not be a vote.

Now let’s get into the rules of the meeting.

There will be presentations be several boards and committees. Discussion, questions and answers, votes and more votes will follow. The procedural rules and voting procedures will, hopefully, be the containers to hold it all together. Many will want to speak, so everyone must limit their time at the microphones to two minutes. Twenty-five people at two minutes each takes close to one hour, despite what the mathematical calculation tells you. I suspect that more than 25 people will want to speak.

General meeting rules

Motion to Amend—If you wish to amend something, you must first fill out the Amendment Form found on the table at the center of the auditorium and present it to town counsel, who will be seated on the stage with the moderator.

  • Once the wording has been settled upon, you may go to the line for the microphone, state you name and address, and make your amendment.
  • The motion requires a second.
  • We will then have discussion of the amendment and vote on it. I will ask for a voice vote. It requires a simple majority to pass.
  • If it passes, then we will discuss the main motion as amended; if it does not pass, we will go back to the main motion.

Move the question—If you wish to ask the meeting to go directly to a vote on the main motion, you must go to a microphone, state your name, and move the question.

  • The motion requires a second.
  • You may not speak or ask a question before you make the motion.
  • Such a motion is not debatable.
  • I will ask for a voice vote. It requires a two-thirds vote to pass.
  • Results of votes in both the gym and the auditorium will be calculated. If it passes we will go directly to a vote on the main motion.

The moderator has the discretion to deny the motion to move the question if she feels that there has not been sufficient discussion. For example, if someone were to rise after 10 minutes of discussion, the moderator is likely to find that this is too soon for such a motion.

Point of order—If you wish to challenge some perceived procedural error, you may rise without being recognized by the moderator and announce a “point of order.”

  • Give your name and street address.
  • State your point.
  • The moderator will consider your point and rule on it.

On Wednesday, I will send out the voting guidelines for the votes we will be taking on June 9.

Reminder: You may check in starting at 8:15 a.m. We will start the meeting promptly at 9:30.

Sincerely,

Sarah Cannon Holden, town moderator
Weston Road.

Committees recommend school options L3 and C; selectmen also include L2

The School Committee, School Building Committee and Board of Selectmen recommended that voters approve school project Option L3 or Option C at the June 9 Special Town Meeting, while selectmen also included Option L2.

Options R, L1 and L2 do not provide the hubs for grades 3–8 that educators have deemed crucial for effective and flexible teaching and learning today, although L2 offers two “flex spaces.” Cost estimates put the L-shaped Option L3 at $93.9 million and Option C, the compact design, at $97 million.

More information:

    • Drawings of the six school options along with costs and tax impacts for each
    • A chart comparing the features and costs of the options
    • The Finance Committee’s updated tax impact projections and comparisons to other area towns

[tcpaccordion id=”17948″]

In a paper poll at its meeting on May 30, concepts L3 and C were recommended by all 16 SBC members and liaisons in attendance (plus member Peter Sugar, who submitted a written response due to his planned absence). Five of the 16 additionally voted for concept L2 as a third recommendation, and one member/liaison voted to recommend all five concepts.

There was little discussion of the reasons for members’ choices except to say that they reflected the guiding principles they adopted last fall after receiving input from the public, other town officials and educators. SBC members had the option of including written comments on their ballots, but those comments were not made public.

Selectmen reject two of the concepts

The Board of Selectmen recommended against Option R as not meeting the town’s needs. “The repair-only option does not seem to me to meet the core mission of what we need to accomplish as a town with this school project,” Selectman James Craig said at the board’s May 21 meeting. “I think we’re well beyond just a repair option, and this does not meet our educational values or our environmental values. I just can’t support the expenditure of $49 million to get us to a spot in time where we’re just treading water.”

Selectmen Jennifer Glass and James Dwyer agreed. “There is nil academic value [in the repair-only option]. I don’t think it’s a good use of money because it doesn’t give you the [return on investment] you want,” Dwyer said.

Option L1 “does not, in our judgment, provide sufficient long-term educational, environmental or financial value,” members said in a May 23 statement. “We believe that the remaining school building concepts (L2, L3 and C) are all reasonable and viable plans that will support, to differing degrees, the long-range needs of our school and community.”

Selectmen also strongly supported the Finance Committee’s recommendation to stay within the town’s statutory debt limit and worried about the substantial tax increase that residents will see.

“I worry about how this tax burden is going to change our community—who sticks around and who leaves,” Dwyer said. “Do we become a ‘graduate and evacuate’ like some of our other towns, where they move in for schools that are awesome and then they leave? The community deteriorates and people are not here for the right reasons. They’re not here for Lincoln values; they’re just here to cash in and cash out on the schools.”

The town’s debt stabilization fund may provide some cushioning, and there are some tax relief programs available to qualifying residents, “but we should look to see if there are any other ways to soften what’s going to be a dramatic tax impact, whatever options gets voted on,” Craig said.

“We want to assure the town that the board is mindful of the magnitude of the financial investment the town is considering,” selectmen said in their joint statement. “Each individual will need to consider and answer the questions of personal affordability and up-front cost vs. long-term value.”

Other committees weigh in

“Options R and L1 do not provide value for money,” the School Committee said in a short May 24 statement. “Options L3 and C are critical for providing 21st-century education, and the School Committee is most excited about the educational value from Option C.”

Earlier last month, the Capital Planning Committee also recommended either Option L3 or C, as did the Lincoln School Foundation this week. The Finance Committee stopped short of advocating any particular option, though members recommended against Option FPC (which is no longer on the table) because it would require borrowing more than the town is allowed to under state statute without a special exemption.

Letter to the editor: LSF supports options L3 and C

To the editor:

The Lincoln School Foundation urges Lincoln residents to vote for L3 or C at the Special Town Meeting on June 9.

The LSF has a 30-year history of funding innovation at the Lincoln Schools. In that time, we have awarded more than 500 grants worth well over a million dollars. Each grant provided resources not available in the school budget to allow teachers and administrators to do more within our schools. The grants have been funded in large part by thousands of donations from the residents of Lincoln. A commitment to excellence in education and innovative practices is, as these individual donations demonstrate, a collective enterprise that is deeply embedded in the values of this community.

In this moment, on the cusp of a major school building project, Lincoln residents have the opportunity to demonstrate again that we value education. Education has evolved in the last half-century. The traditional model of self-contained classrooms, which was born from the single-room schoolhouses of a century ago and then adapted to provide a work force for factory labor, does not fully allow for the education that our students need for 21st-century life.

Educational research shows that children of today—the adults of tomorrow—need to be collaborators, critical thinkers, and problem solvers. The teachers and administrators at Lincoln School know this and practice this daily.

However, the teaching and learning at Lincoln School is constrained by the outdated structure. Best practices in education insist on flexibility and small groups—arranging and rearranging students throughout the day to allow for project-based learning, differentiation, and meeting each student’s individual needs. Isolated classrooms placed in a row hinder this work.

School building options L3 and C both offer a fundamental reimagining of the interior spaces within Lincoln School. “Hubs” offer extra flexible space to better allow for small groups, collaboration, and effective differentiation. Additionally, the major investment of L3 or C gives us the opportunity during the upcoming design phase to specify features that further educational best practices, such as visually permeable walls and inviting and configurable furniture.

Lincoln has been on the forefront of conservation and environmentalism. Lincoln has been on the forefront of progressive social values and thoughtful affordable housing. And Lincoln can be on the forefront of transformative 21st century education.

The LSF endorses L3 and C design concepts as those that best support the district’s vision for education by providing an environment in which students and teachers can more fully engage with collaborative, deep, and authentic learning practices. Space matters: it can catalyze, facilitate, and nurture innovation.

This is an opportunity for us to come together as a community around a shared value and a vision for the future of education. On June 9, we hope you will join us in selecting an educationally transformative school building project, L3 or C.

Sincerely,

Trustees of the Lincoln School Foundation: DJ Mitchell (chair), Ginger Reiner (treasurer), Gabrielle Berberian, Cathie Bitter, Juliana Delahunty, Lis Herbert, Jen Holleran, Audrey Kalmus, Tareef Kawaf, Lucy Maulsby, Aldis Russell, Tricia Thornton-Wells, and Nick Whitman

Letter to the editor: option C offers the most benefits

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

Letter to the editor: do school repairs over a period of time

To the editor:

The upcoming Town Meeting in June will be crowded, long and tense. And many will not/cannot be there. It may be democratic, but it will not be accessible to all.    

Why end a school campus that is beautiful, has provided excellent education (as I am sure most would agree) and exchange it for a very expensive new structure that “might” produce “better” education? Engineers have said the current school buildings are structurally sound (else they would not still be in use) but in need of repair/maintenance. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable and less disruptive to all in town to budget repairs over a longer period of time? Wouldn’t it be more equitable, more Lincoln-like, to avoid debt that will decrease economic diversity in town and drive people out of town?

Is the process to eliminate what works sustainable? It was said that any demolition would be recycled. Recycling is growing more “expensive” now that China no longer takes our trash. And some recycling might not even be doable, except at great cost in dollars and to the environment.  

My taxes would increase $3,000+ per year with the $100 million option. Although I can afford it, I would much rather donate the money to people and organizations addressing the tragic results of the massive income inequality (that hasn’t existed since the pharaohs of Egypt, to quote economist Richard Wolff) that is causing massive inequity, corruption, and environmental degradation that affects even Lincoln. 

Sincerely,

Jean Palmer
247 Tower Rd., Lincoln

Letter from the moderator #2: general procedures for June 9 meeting

Editor’s note: This is the second in a series of pieces by Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden about preparations and procedures for the Special Town Meeting on June 9. The first letter appears here.

To the editor:

Today is the day to review some general procedural rules related to presentations and speaking. I will open the meeting with some general introductory comments and the following information and rules.

  • The boards making presentations have agreed with me on time limits. I will do my best to hold them to it.
  • After the boards and committees have made their presentations, the meeting will be opened up for questions and comments.
  • If you are in the Reed Gym where there is overflow seating, you will have to come to the main auditorium to speak. There is a live feed to the gym but not from the gym. An assistant moderator will be in the gym.
  • When you rise to speak, please go to one of the two microphones in the middle of the auditorium where you may stand in line. If your point is made by someone ahead of you, I urge you to resist making it again!
  • If getting to the microphone is difficult (not just inconvenient), someone will bring you a roving microphone. Please have your thoughts organized so that you can be succinct. At the start, I will permit no more than two minutes at most per comment. We need time for everyone who wants to speak. At some point I may reduce the time to one minute.
  • When it is your turn to speak, please state your name and street address.
  • Members of the boards and committees may or may not respond to you specifically. That is left to their judgment.
  • We all should make the effort to listen to the speakers ahead of us so we can decide if we actually have something further to offer to the discussion.
Reminders:
  • Check-in begins at 8:15 a.m. The meeting will begin at 9:30 and we will be entering into the presentations immediately. Please be in your seats by 9:30 so you are not disruptive to others in the hall.
  • You have until Wednesday, May 30 to register to vote at this meeting.

Sincerely,

Sarah Cannon Holden, Town Moderator
Weston Rd.