school project*

By Alice Waugh

Reporting on results from previous school building forums, architects noted that residents seem to be converging on a “price point” of $35 million to $40 million for the town’s net spending on a school project.

At the fourth and final School Building Advisory Committee public forum on the school building project on January 12, consultants from Dore & Whittier recapped the previously presented three families of renovation and construction options and their estimated prices (see the Lincoln Squirrel, Dec. 8, 2014):

• 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 architects added a seventh choice to the Option 2 family called Option 2G, which is the same as 2F but without $7.7 million in deferred facilities work such as a girls’ locker room in Reed Gym, improvements to playing fields, paving and curbing, etc. Option 2G would cost an estimated $39.9 million, said Jason Boone of Dore and Whittier.

At the State of the Town meeting in November and again this week, architects and school officials explained that Lincoln could apply to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for funding to offset some of the project’s cost. The town could be eligible for a reimbursement of 35 to 40 percent, but only for a project that was approved and overseen by the MSBA. The agency will support only projects that meet all of a school’s demonstrated educational needs, which for Lincoln would mean one of the choices from Option 3 or perhaps an upper-end Option 2.

More than 76 percent of residents at the State of the Town expressed a preference for the Option 3 family, while 20 percent voted for Option 2 and 4 percent for Option 1.

Applying again for MSBA funding would also add at least 18 months to the project timeline and about $3.3 million in cost escalation associated with that delay, as well as a requirement to conform to the state’s requirements and procedures. The MSBA would also require another feasibility study as well as a “clear distinction” between the school project and a community center that might be built, said Jon Richardson of Dore & Whittier.

Homing in on options

Since state funding is far from certain, residents at the third SBAC forum in December were asked which specific project options they would support, depending on the MSBA situation. The options that received the most votes, along with the net costs to the town after a state reimbursement of 40 percent, were:

• 2E—without state funding ($36.9 million), 17 votes
• 2F—without state funding ($47.6 million), 17 votes; with state funding (Lincoln’s share would be $28.6 million), 7 votes
• 3B—without state funding ($55.8 million), 19 votes; with state funding (Lincoln’s share would be $33.5 million), 10 votes
• 3C—with state funding (Lincoln’s share would be $35.3 million), 44 votes

Option 2G, which was not one of the voting options at that forum but was discussed verbally, would cost about $39.9 million overall, or $23.9 million with state funding.

“What we came to realize is that there is a price point the town is maybe organizing around” of $35 to $40 million as the town’s net cost for a project, Boone said.

What will the MSBA say?

Although there is some uncertainty as to the state’s willingness to fund a project , “we feel that a well-crafted statement of interest and strong support from the town would lead the MSBA to reengage,” Richardson said. “Their primary interest is in successful projects. They would love to take what at the moment is an unsuccessful project and turn it back into a successful project.”

In 2013, the MSBA approved a reimbursement of $21 million for a $49 million project, but the pledge was withdrawn after voters failed to approve the project by a two-thirds majority at Town Meeting.

Applying for state funding “is not just filling out a form and hoping for the best. Lincoln has to find a way to demonstrate its support for an MSBA project,” said School Committee chair Jennifer Glass. The committee would therefore seek a two-thirds majority at Town Meeting this March and a simple majority at the ballot box on the question of whether to apply, as well as support from all town boards and commissions.

To submit a statement of interest to the MSBA, the School Committee and Board of Selectmen are not required to gather a two-thirds voter majority or have any town-wide vote at all, “but that’s not how we want to do this.” Glass said. “If we can’t get two-thirds now, when there isn’t any money on the table,” it will be even harder to do so once voters are asked to approve a specific expenditure, she added. “It is a risk but, it’s a self-imposed risk.”

Deciding on the questions

The School Committee must now come up with wording for Town Meeting warrant articles to find out whether voters want to (1) support a project with a net cost to the town of $30 million to $48 million, (2) reapply for MSBA funding, and (3) approve spending for a feasibility study. The cost of that study would depend on the results of the first two votes. Glass presented three possible ways to frame these questions. Her full presentation also included potential construction timelines that would vary according to the various voting outcomes, with construction beginning anywhere from fall 2016 to mid-2018.

Some residents at this week’s forum worried that the price range voters might be asked about ($30 to $45 million) is too broad, or that multiple questions would be too confusing.

Resident Sara Mattes suggested dividing the various questions between the regular Town Meeting in March and a special Town Meeting in June. “You’re going to really jam a Town Meeting, and it will be very complicated and people may get frustrated,” she said.

Asked about the impact on homeowners’ tax bills of the various options, Glass said that the Finance Committee was working on estimates. At the State of the Town meeting, the FinCom offered figures for estimated property tax increases ranging from 2.5 to 7.3 percent, or $321 to $2,254, based on the median tax bill of $12,503 in fiscal 2015. The estimates assumed different scenarios such as the amount borrowed ($10 million to $50 million), the interest rate (3.6 percent or 4.6 percent) and the time span of the bond (20 or 30 years).

By Alice Waugh

In a follow-up to the State of the Town meeting where attendees expressed preferences for school and community center ideas with sticky dots, those dots were out in force again last Wednesday as residents focused on which direction to go for a school building project.

The December 2 meeting was the third in a series of open forums hosted by the School Building Advisory Committee to update residents on renovation/construction options and cost estimates for meeting the school building’s basic facilities needs as well as educational upgrades.

At the State of the Town meeting on November 15 (see the Lincoln Squirrel, Nov. 17, 2014), architects from Dore and Whittier presented project possibilities are grouped into three broad categories (all estimates include construction costs, professional fees, phasing and escalation due to the passage of time):

• Option 1: facilities work only ($12.2 million to $29 million)
• Option 2: facilities plus some “a la carte” educational enhancements ($29.5 million to $47.6 million)
• Option 3: a comprehensive package of facilities and educational upgrades ($54.7 million to $58.8 million)

Architect Jason Boone of Dore and Whittier reported last week that 76 percent of residents expressed a preference for Option 3, while 20 percent preferred Option 2 and just 4 percent preferred Option 1. In comment sticky notes at State of the Town, residents said they wanted the school project to be tied as closely as possible to a community center project, asked that the new school spaces be energy-efficient, and supported the educational vision outlined by Superintendent of Schools Becky McFall.

Key variables that residents will have to weigh when deciding which route to pursue are cost, which educational enhancements to choose, the importance of energy efficiency in light of the the town bylaw seeking to eliminate fossil fuel consumption in town buildings by 2030, the extent to which people want to preserve the existing school, project timing, and the level of joint school/community use for space in a renovated school.

The cost of a school project will depend on whether the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is willing to pay for some of it. Boone noted that in the previous go-round, the MSBA would have paid about 40 percent of the $49 million cost for a new school if residents had approved the project by a two-thirds margin at Town Meeting.

If the town decides to seek MSBA funding again, the project must address all of the school’s facilities and educational needs to be eligible, meaning “you would have to do a high Option 2 or one of the Option 3s,” Boone said.

There are some conditions that would come with seeking MSBA funding. The town would have to resubmit a statement of interest and do another feasibility study; there would be a delay of at least 18 months in starting construction (vs. doing a project with town money only); and the timing and amount of funding is uncertain.

Using Option 3A as an example, a 40 percent grant from the MSBA would mean the town would get about $24.3 million, though that would be partially offset by an extra $3.3 million cost caused by the time delay while going through the MSBA process, Boone said. If all went well, the renovated building under Option 3A would be ready for occupancy in April 2019 without MSBA funding and June 2020 with the funding, he said.

Involving the MSBA would also mean less opportunity for overlap between new school space and a community center. “They do have restrictions and requirements, and the relationship of a community center to a school project would be problematic. Trying to combine projects could be a potential red flag to the MSBA,” Boone said.

Residents discussed various community center sites at the State of the Town and indicated that having it located on the site of the Hartwell pods was the best option. “We have not explored any options that embed any community center programming in any of our options,” but none of the Dore and Whittier proposal would prevent such a facility from going on the Hartwell site, Boone said.

Educational enhancement options

When it comes down to choosing among the educational enhancements under discussion, “we acknowledge that we will likely have to make some very difficult decisions,” McFall said as she discussed a sheet listing the educational value (high, moderate or modest) added by various upgrades, “but anything we do to the building will be an educational improvement—anything,” she said.

A cafeteria/commons space for teaching larger groups appeared as a high improvement in three of McFall’s lists of upgrade goals: flexible multi-use spaces, security (since it would involve building a link between the Brooks school and the Reed gym), and community use. “Adding that space really meets a lot of different needs,” she said. A package including a Brooks cafeteria would cost at least $36.6 million by Dore and Whittier’s estimates.

As for the energy efficiency of the various options, Boone said Dore and Whittier hasn’t come up with estimates for work that would meet the 2030 bylaw standards, but any building that did so would need advanced heating/ventilation/air conditioning technology incorporating alternative energy such as geothermal, wind and/or solar.

“It’s important to note that there would be a measurable and significant cost premium to truly achieve that goal,” he said. That priority is also affected by the preservation variable. The more of the existing building you try to save, the harder it becomes to achieve the 2030 goals,” Boone said. “We need to hear from you as to prioritization.”

Those at the meeting were then asked to indicate with one sticky dot which of the specific options they would support with MSBA funding and the another dot what they could support without money from the MSBA. The result: Option 3C got the most stickers overall and a clear majority of the “with MSBA funding” stickers, while several options—2D/E, 2F, 3B and 3C—garnered a good number of  “without MSBA funding” stickers. All of Dore and Whittier’s options are illustrated here.

Options 3B and 3C offer the same features and differ only on the proportion of renovation to new construction. Option 3B is essentially the idea proposed by the “Fireside Seven,” a group of Lincoln architects and designers including Douglas Adams and Ken Bassett that formed after the defeat of a new $49 million school at Town Meeting in November 2012 (see the Lincoln Squirrel, April 2, 2013). It would cost $55.8 million and calls for about two-third renovation and one-third new construction. Option 3C would cost $58.5 million and include 52 percent renovation vs. 48 percent new construction. The drawing for that option shows a new two-story segment connecting the Smith building and the 1994 link, although Boone said two floors weren’t a given and that residents should focus only on the percentage of renovation to new construction.

By Alice Waugh

The School Building Advisory Committee’s architectural consultants last week presented detailed lists of repair and renovation options and cost estimates for the Lincoln School that will be the topic of town-wide discussion at the State of the Town meeting this Saturday, Nov. 15 at 9 a.m. in the Brooks auditorium.

[Read more…] about School needs at least $27.5m even without cafeterias, architects say

By Alice Waugh

Programmatic flexibility, opportunities for collaboration, and a connection to the community and the outdoor environment are among the key educational values that support the need for a Lincoln School building project, Superintendent of Schools Becky McFall told officials at a multiboard meeting on September 30.

Also at the meeting, architects from Dore & Whittier presented an analysis of the results of a charrette held at a September 16 meeting where about 70 residents broke into teams and identified key issues and priorities for a project, as well as what they thought would define a successful project.

[Read more…] about McFall outlines educational needs for school

By Alice Waugh

Residents got their first glimpse of some cost options for repairing and renovating the Lincoln School at a School Building Advisory Committee forum on September 16.

[Read more…] about Architects discuss school repair options

The School Building Advisory Committee (SBAC) will have a public forum on Tuesday, Sept. 16 to share preliminary cost estimates for the renovation options for the Lincoln School. The meeting will take place from 7-9 p.m. in the Smith gym.

The current SBAC began meeting in May and hired Dore & Whittier Architects in July to to develop repair and renovation options for the school. The moves were made in the wake of the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s refusal in December 2013 to consider a new application from the town to help fund a comprehensive project.

The SBAC’s schedule of upcoming meetings through January 2015 includes several other public forums:

• October 16 – Presentation of alternative concepts
• November 15 – State of the Town meeting
• December 2 – Evaluation of alternatives
• January 13 – Presentation of final report

The SBAC also plans joint meetings with other town boards and commissions on September 30 and November 5.