school project*

To the editor:

I have been delighted over the last couple of years as Lincoln has reached a tipping point on clean energy. We are working toward the elimination of CO2 emissions for our town buildings. We are working on Community Choice Aggregation to increase the renewably generated supply of our electricity throughout the town. There are a rapidly growing number of electric vehicles (EVs) in town and many of us have already made the switch to renewably generated electricity directly and/or indirectly.

The Lincoln School building project represents more than 50 percent of our energy consumption in our town buildings. It is a critical piece of the puzzle to move Lincoln forward on our clean energy journey. We also need models like Lincoln at a town, school, and church level to act as building blocks that can be replicated in nearby towns and across Massachusetts.

The key aspects of our net-zero school are establishing a high-efficiency building envelope, converting all of our systems to electricity, and providing all of the energy (electricity) required to operate our school from on-site solar-generated electricity. In addition, there are embodied energy savings due to the fact that we are saving portions of the existing school infrastructure. That is to say, the portions of the building that will not be newly constructed will not require CO2 emissions to produce those materials, transport them, and build with them.

The educational aspects of a net-zero school include the engagement of students, faculty, and others in the community around electricity use and the study of the operational data collected. This results in a more sustainable environment as we understand how our use of the school impacts electricity demand, which enables us to modify our behavior and electricity consumption.

Financially, a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for solar arrays on the school rooftops and adjacent carports is an ideal way for the town to eliminate upfront capital costs, reduce current operating costs, and eliminate the unpredictability of fossil fuel prices in the future.

Please vote YES on December 1 and 3 at Town Meeting and in the ballot booth.

Sincerely,

Peter Watkinson
9 Wheeler Rd. #81, Lincoln

---

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.

To the editor:

As members of Mothers Out Front, an environmental group dedicated to a swift and just transition away from fossil fuels, we are urging everyone to support the school building project.

We have an opportunity to build a school that is environmentally important—a chance to build a net-zero school. We must think outside of Lincoln as we make this decision. What is our responsibility to this earth? In the past two years, we have seen the California wildfires destroy unprecedented amounts of land and untold lives. In fact, the California wildfire season is now year-round. And closer to home, Boston has had two “100-year storms” that flooded the Long Wharf area in 2018.

This is the climate reality we are all living with in 2018. Scientists have predicted that these climate related events will intensify in both frequency and force. And Lincoln will not be immune. These climate related events are vastly costly. Hurricane Harvey was estimated to cost $125 billion.

We must do all we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that means moving away from the use of fossil fuels. Our new school will be be heated with electricity made primarily onsite from solar panels. Its goal will be to produce as much energy as it uses.

The design team has also incorporated plenty of natural light and views to the outdoors to minimize the need for overhead lighting. The heating system will be air- or ground-source heat pumps, providing a consistent and comfortable environment for our students and staff. And over the life of the building, we will save considerably on energy costs, while honoring our 2008 town bylaw to reduce fossil fuel energy consumption by 80 percent on any town-owned buildings undergoing renovation.

Sincerely,

Mothers Out Front Coordinating Team: Emily Haslett, Sheila Dennis, Staci Montori, Patricia O’Hagan

---

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.

To the editor:

Lincoln is fortunate to have so many people committed to our town value of providing excellence in education for our students.

As a member of the Lincoln School Committee, I take our mission seriously, which generally states: “The Lincoln School Committee seeks to unite our communities in challenging and equipping our students to acquire essential skills and knowledge … and believes that if we commit to a shared vision for the district and its educational goals, actively listen to and engage with the district and its constituents, and act as stewards of the town’s values and interests, the district’s educational obligations and aspirations, and town resources … then we will strengthen the engagement, achievement, and development of all students as we help fulfill the district’s educational vision and expectations.”

I write this not speaking on behalf of the School Committee or in any formal capacity, but simply as a fellow citizen. With the vote for the school building project in front of us, we are all responsible for actively listening, working together, acting as stewards for the town’s wider interests, and leading with our commitment to providing excellence in education.

The process that has brought us to this moment has been long, comprehensive, often arduous, and sometimes frustrating, as there are many interests to balance. As such, I am proud and grateful for the process that the School Building Committee (SBC) has followed to get us here. I recognize it as abundantly collaborative and transparent while balancing as best as possible the needs of all stakeholders. They have brought us a plan that meets an essential program for enhanced educational outcomes while ensuring the responsible use the town’s monies as thoughtfully as possible—considering inputs from FinCom, CapCom, the Board of Selects, the Lincoln school district administration, and many other town boards and committees.

I wholeheartedly support the plan in front of us.

The SBC started by understanding the needs of the educational program as well as the wider town, taking into consideration the many analyses and plans that preceded this particular leg of the journey. It collaborated with the committee looking at the community center to better understand the campus master plan. It received active and ongoing guidance from local experts in architecture, education, site design, construction, historical context, and sustainability. It presented the town initially with more than two dozen options that were narrowed to six, then five, then three and then finally the plan in front of us.

At all points, the Lincoln community was engaged and involved. While the project has a considerable cost, I do not consider this plan to be extravagant. It is not the most comprehensive or expensive option and has repeatedly pared down the program scope without sacrificing the core educational program.

I further believe that there is no other viable option that meets these goals. As was widely agreed in prior town meetings, I do not believe we can support a repair alternative that has repeatedly been assessed and determined to be a poor use of town funds. Nor should we support a wait-and-see approach that ignores our clearly defined facility needs in the hopes that the fundamentals of our economy will somehow change in our favor, or that the MSBA will radically change their priorities and somehow put us at the top of their compressed list.

I believe that any delay to this decision will force us into a costly and yet low-value repair path—one that would see taxes rise without the corresponding educational benefits. I instead choose to look forward to providing our children with a modern educational environment while honoring the essence of our past.

In conclusion, I’d like to thank all of the people in our town who have educated us, challenged us, focused us, pushed us, and ultimately contributed to this outcome. We have a sound and exciting plan in front of us that is a reflection of our values and shared goals. I thank them for their participation. I thank them for their support for this critical program. On December 1, December 3 and beyond, I ask that you do the same.

Sincerely,

Peter Borden
36 Longmeadow Road

---

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.

To the editor:

Lincoln has reached a critical juncture. Our school is in need of a serious upgrade, having had no real work done on the buildings since 1994. Add to this the consideration that education has also developed since that time. We must think seriously about designing educational spaces that embody teaching strategies that respond to 21st-century needs.

We have been making a concentrated effort to respond to the challenges. After the 2012 project did not succeed, the town’s leadership promised that when the town was ready to choose the scope and budget of a new school project, the choice would rest with the citizens of Lincoln. The current School Building Committee (SBC) worked to bring 5 choices to the town, and on June 9, we came together as a community and gave overwhelming support to the “L3” design which comprehensively renovates the existing school, provides significant upgrades to the “bones of the school,” transforms many of the educational spaces needed to have our children thrive, and will be one of the first “net zero” school renovations in Massachusetts.

The SBC has worked diligently since May 2017 on the school project. It has met 44 times and invested countless hours on this important community project. We are proud of the work of our design team and owners’ project manager, and we are grateful for the dedication of the many liaisons from other committees and to the members of the public who have consistently engaged in the process. The proposed solution embodies the latest thinking by educators, an approach which has demonstrated its results at the now completed Hanscom Middle School. This design incorporates a series of hubs or neighborhoods at each grade level to encourage flexibility for our teachers, creating a collaborative and enthusiastic learning environment for our children.

Lincoln residents, not the SBC or town leadership, chose the $93.9 million budget for the project at the June 9, 2018 Special Town Meeting. This budget is in line with recent school construction/renovation costs for projects in the greater Boston area, when adjustments are made for the size and time of the various school projects. The town has reduced the amount of necessary bonding for the project from $93.9 million to $88.5 million through the use of $4.4 million from the stabilization fund and $1 million from free cash. The SBC has also collaborated with the Assessors, the Council on Aging, the Finance Committee, and the Board of Selectmen to publicize all the available tax deferral and mitigation programs, and to expand those, such as the Senior Tax Work-off Program, over which the town has direct control.

In each generation, Lincoln has invested in its schools—and this is the time to do so again. Our community has an opportunity to move forward with a project that balances innovative educational spaces, sustainability, and respect for our history and our strong civic tradition. We do not take the financial impact on our community lightly, and we know that it is not an easy decision for our fellow citizens. We do believe this project provides significant value for the investment, and we hope that we will come together on this final step and vote to move the town forward. Please join us in voting “yes” both at the Special Town Meeting on December 1 and at the ballot on December 3. Thank you.

Sincerely,

The Lincoln School Building 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.

To the editor:

As you think about the upcoming votes on the school, here are a few thoughts from someone has been involved in the process for the last six years, first as a School Building Advisory Committee member and now as a School Building Committee (SBC) member. Not surprisingly, I believe the project is important for our school and our town. I would like to share with you some of the reasons behind my thinking.

The town, not the SBC or town leadership, chose this project

It is important to remember that it was the town’s residents, not the SBC or town leadership, who chose the option to be voted on December 1 and December 3. This was done at the June 9, 2018 Special Town Meeting (STM), which was attended by almost 650 people. At that time, the SBC presented five options. The options ranged in cost from $49 million to $98 million. The STM overwhelming chose the option that is the subject of the December bonding votes. This option, whose budget is $93.9 million, received 74 percent of the vote. The more expensive option received 17 percent of the vote. The least expensive option, the “repair only” option, received 4.3 percent of the vote in the first round and was eliminated from contention at that time.

I recognize and respect that some would prefer the cost to be less. I also acknowledge that many people in town do not attend town meetings, although I believe a turnout of about 650 people is pretty high for one in Lincoln. Town Meeting has been an integral part of how our town democracy has worked for a long time. It is also a fair and open process, as was the one followed by the SBC before the June 9 vote. In my opinion, we need to be cautious about attempting to re-litigate matters that were decided at a town meeting if we want the town to move forward and avoid a debilitating gridlock.

A “no” vote could depress property values

Understandably, taxes are what people focus on. However, another relevant consideration is property values. In my opinion, there is a risk that, if Lincoln votes down a school building project for a second time in the last six years, property values in town may decline because the town may get the reputation that it does not support its schools. This could drive young families to other towns—those that have a reputation for supporting their schools. If this occurs, there is a risk, particularly for those who do not plan to remain in town long-term, that the financial “hit” they will sustain, on account of a decrease in their property values, could exceed (in some cases substantially) the amount of additional taxes they will have to pay over the period of time they remain in town on account of the school building project. Even a small decrease of only 3 percent in one’s property value could have a significant negative impact on the homeowner.

The tax increase

The June 9 vote indicated that the voters believed it would be irresponsible and shortsighted to simply bring the building up to code for $49 million but provide no educational enhancements to it.  Since we recognize that the school needs more than $49 million worth of work, the question becomes: what are we getting for the incremental $44.9 million ($49 million + $44.9 million = $93.9 million) in order to achieve educational enhancements? This question, in turn, leads to the critical question for the taxpayers: how much more in taxes will we be required to pay on account of this $44.9 million? Excluding the $5.4 million of “cash in hand,” an $88.5 million bond that carries an interest rate of either 4 percent or 5 percent will add $2,415 or $2,717 to the median taxpayer’s annual tax bill. However, the incremental amount of $44.9 million for the educational enhancements only adds about $1,225 or $1,435. The ultimate question for many taxpayers becomes whether this incremental amount is a fair amount to pay in order to realize the educational enhancements that the school project offers.

Tax assistance programs

I realize that some people in town may have trouble paying either the full or incremental amount of the tax increase. Those in this position should investigate the town’s programs for helping people with their property taxes. Depending on the program and whether a person qualifies for it, taxes can be deferred or the benefits can amount to as much as $1,000, $1,500, or $2000, annually. Whether the median tax increase is $2,415 or $2,717 for the full project or $1,225 or $1,435 for the incremental portion of the project, this type of assistance could substantially soften the tax impact of the project. See pages 9-12 of the FAQ document.

The educational enhancements to the school

The educators will explain the educational enhancements the project brings to the school and the students. I will only make a few observations. In my view, the space in which teachers and students teach and learn can have an impact on the breath and depth of educational programming. Instead of continuing with the single classroom model (i.e., each teacher has her/his own box to teach from), the renovated school will combine “distinct classrooms and multi-use spaces that can adapt to changing educational needs over time.” The “neighborhood” model in grades 3-8 features classrooms clustered around a shared common space (“hub”) that supports a curriculum based on the ability to flexibly group students and teachers together and to foster age-appropriate independence.

The new center of the school will include a “learning commons” that can accommodate large-scale programming and a “dining commons” that can be used as flexible educational space during non-dining hours. The addition of the flexible spaces throughout the building provides spaces that can handle different-sized groups for different educational purposes. In my opinion, this flexibility model, which combines traditional separate classrooms with different-sized flexible spaces, is not an educational fad. It is also not a return to the discredited “open classroom” model. It represents common sense because education is not a one-size-fits-all experience for students or teachers.

The cost of the project is in line with comparable school projects

The cost of the school project is not excessive when it is compared with the cost of other school projects in our area. The SBC, working with its owner’s project manager, Daedalus Projects, whose business is the school public construction market in Massachusetts, investigated this issue and concluded that the cost of the Lincoln project is not out of line, when adjustments are made for when the projects were undertaken and the size of the other projects. See the SBC post titled “Construction Costs and Other Matters” and SBC member Craig Nicholson’s November 20, 2018 post on LincolnTalk. The FinCom also investigated this issue and reached the same conclusion (see points 3 and 4 in its May 22, 2018 recommendations).

The costs of public and home construction projects are not comparable

Based on what the SBC has learned from Daedalus and an SBC member who works in the construction industry, this type of comparison is not valid. A public construction project in Massachusetts is governed by a panoply of statutes and regulations that do not apply to home construction, such as earthquake resistance and additional fire resistance. Wage rates for workers on such projects are determined by the Commonwealth, which ensures a middle-class income level for the skilled tradesmen who will build the school. The market for the public construction of a school is separate and distinct from that for home construction. See page 4 of “Construction Costs and Other Matters.”

I hope this letter has helped you prepare for the very important votes you will cast on December 1 and December 3. In my opinion, they will have a significant impact on the future of the school and our town. For the above reasons, and many more, I think that future is best secured by a “yes” vote.

Sincerely,

Steven P. Perlmutter
90 Todd Pond Road

---

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.

To the editor:

The Lincoln Teachers Association, the Lincoln School Committee and the Lincoln School Administration have a long history of working collaboratively to support the education of the children in Lincoln. It is with this collaboration in mind that we are reaching out to the residents of Lincoln prior to the new school building vote in December. The Lincoln Teachers Association strongly supports the school building project for several reasons.

In our work together, the LTA, School Committee, and administration share a commitment to teaching the children of Lincoln in a forward-thinking manner. We aim to create an innovative learning environment where students’ academic and social development can flourish, where students develop confidence to see themselves as leaders of their own learning, and one that fosters collaboration amongst students and faculty. We see the following as some of the positives points in the building project:

• A new building will provide a climate-controlled environment that will better allow students and teachers to better engage in and focus on learning.
• The variety of spaces the new building will provide allows students to be taught in a variety of different groupings and allow for more interdisciplinary and collaborative work.
  between students and within teaching teams. These spaces are more suitable for collaborative, project-based learning.
• In addition, the numerous learning spaces allow teachers to better meet student needs, as we have a variety of teaching spaces to work within.
• The new learning commons, dining space, and media center/library have the flexibility to be used in a number of ways, both for the school and the community.
• A dedicated kitchen/dining space allows for the gyms to be used full-time for learning.
• Given the beautiful town we live in, it is always our desire to get students outside for both learning and recreation. The new building provides opportunities to further connections to the outdoors.
• The specific design of the building for grades 3–8 allows for better use of resources and provides dedicated spaces for collaboration.
• Bringing preK into the same building allows all the teachers in Lincoln to work together as we teach students from preK to eighth grade. It allows for greater cross-grade interaction and eases the transition from preK to K.
• With a central entrance and single administrative suite it allows the building to truly feel like a preK–8 building.

The LTA hopes you take these factors into your thinking during the upcoming building project process vote and decision. As always, we look forward to seeing residents in and around the school and appreciate your support in our efforts to provide the best education for your children along with the School Committee and administration.

Sincerely,

Matt Reed and Elaine Herzog
Lincoln Teachers Association co-presidents

---

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.

(Editor’s note: Shiller is an assistant professor of economics at Brandeis University and a father of two.)

As an academic economist at Brandeis University, I study empirical relationships in economic markets. As our town considers a major school building project, I want to share the results of some peer-reviewed, high-quality economics studies that look at how school projects affect property values.

Rigorous research strongly supports the contention that school funding pays for itself by raising property values. In fact, there is quite a bit of research supporting this claim. Consider one example: Lisa Barrow and Cecilia Rouse (2003) exploited a change in the formula which determines state-provided support for local school districts. They found that every $1 increase in state-provided funding raised the total value of homes in a school district by $20.

But perhaps a more pertinent question is whether spending on school structures raises property values. Like many questions, this one is hard to answer. Raw correlations may lie. Towns that choose to build new schools or renovate may be different in many ways from towns that choose not to do so. Maybe these other differences explain why property values rise in towns that choose to build new schools or renovate them. Fortunately, empirical economists have developed techniques to answer these types of questions.

To address this concern, Cellini, Ferreira, and Rothstein (2010) used an estimation strategy called a “regression discontinuity.” Intuitively, the approach exploits the relationship between the share voting to approve school building projects and property values. Of course, towns with 75% of voters agreeing to fund a new or renovated school structure are inherently different than towns with only 25% approval. But the approach focuses on towns right around the vote-share threshold needed to approve funding. Presumably, on average, towns where 49% of voters approved funding are very similar to towns where 50% of voters approved funding. But only in the latter case is school structure funding approved. Hence, we can compare property values across towns barely on either side of the 50% vote share cutoff (note that in Lincoln, a two-thirds vote is needed to secure funding).

Cellini, Ferreira, and Rothstein focused on California, which had enough local school infrastructure funding referenda to determine the impact with a high degree of statistical significance, i.e., confidence that the results are correct. They found that funding for school facilities more than paid for itself. Each $1 increase in capital spending on schools increased the aggregate values of homes in the district by $1.50.

While their study focused on less expensive measures than we are currently considering (there are not enough larger measures to yield statistical significance), available evidence suggests property values will go up by more than costs. After all, new school structures are a very conspicuous indication that a town supports education.

Even though the school should pay for itself by raising property values, it is natural to think back to the school building costs from 2012, when we failed to reach the super-majority needed for approval. Many might ask: why should we pay for a new school now, since the total cost has gone up? The answer is that we still have an opportunity to build at a reasonably low cost, and costs will probably only move higher.

Yes, the price of a new school structure was very low in 2012, but only because of a perfect storm—three separate rare occurrences, each of which lowered the price and all of which happened to line up at the same time.

First, the state had promised to pay $20 million. I am not an expert on these state programs, but I think it is unlikely that the state will offer $20 million again soon, since we spurned them once and there are many needier towns. Second, interest rates were near all-time lows. Hence, the costs of borrowing to fund the project were incredibly low. Third, construction costs were low.

So yes, we may have missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build/renovate the school in 2012 at an incredibly low cost. But we cannot undo that decision. The question now is, what to do going forward. We need to build or renovate relatively soon. Should we do so now?

While we may not receive as good a deal as in 2012, it still makes financial sense to build now. Interest rates are still low by historical standards, but going up. We should try to lock in the loan’s interest rate soon, to lessen the costs of borrowing the money up front to pay for the school building project.

In conclusion, I believe we should approve the school building project for two reasons. First, and most importantly, it is the right thing to do for the children of Lincoln. Second, approving the school building project appears to be the wise choice financially. Be selfish, and vote YES for the school building project.

Sincerely,

Ben Shiller
181 Bedford Rd.

---

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.