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

school project*

No consensus from FinCom on school options or cost limit

After hours of discussion, the Finance Committee on May 3 decided not to endorse any of the school project plans over the others and did not specify a project price limit to recommend to voters. However, members made other recommendations, including that Lincoln should not appeal to the state to go over its borrowing limit.

In its discussion on that to recommend to voters at the Special Town Meeting on June 9, the FinCom also said in unanimous resolutions that:

  • The estimated construction costs, exclusive of “soft” and escalation costs, are well within the norms of comparable Massachusetts school construction costs.
  • The town should not delay the school project in hopes of more favorable construction costs down the road.
  • It is more fiscally responsible to do a single project that addresses all the needs of the building rather than doing a series of piecemeal repairs.

Members debated how much financial cushion—in the form of additional borrowing “headroom” under the town’s borrowing limit, and/or cash to leave in the debt stabilization fund—the town ought to preserve after borrowing for the school project. They also discussed how much of that fund should be used to cushion the first year or two of repayments or to reduce the initial bond amount.

Much of the uncertainty on the part of committee members stems from the fact that several of the six cost estimates for the school project are very close to the town’s current $97 million borrowing limit (Option C is estimated at $95 million and Option L3 at $89 million). And those figures do not include another $2 million for a net-zero energy-efficient building with solar panels.

Adding to the uncertainty is the distinct possibility that the price tag on whatever option is chosen on June 9 could drop before the bonding votes happen in the fall, as officials noted on April 30.

“It’s entirely realistic to expect a fair amount of movement in the cost estimates between June 9 and December 1, but it’s not realistic to expect any shift” before June, School Committee chair Tim Christenfeld said at Thursday’s FinCom meeting.

In 2011, the SBC initially included preK in the building and adding a two-story addition, but to reduce cost and square footage, preK was taken out and the addition was reduced to one floor.

Also, “there are many, many contingencies built in at this stage of the process,” Selectman and former School Committee chair Jennifer Glass said on Sunday. “As decisions are made, the ‘knowns’ replace the ‘estimates’ and some of the contingencies get reduced.

“For this project, I would never presume to say that history is an indicator of future performance,” Glass continued. “We cannot make any guarantees of a percentage decrease—we can only say that the SBC will take the June 9th vote as a budget cap, and do everything reasonable to reduce up-front costs to the town without overly sacrificing long-term value.”

The FinCom tabled its discussion on a financial buffer until its next meeting on May 22.

No agreement on cost limit

Committee members also wrestled with recommending a specific cost ceiling for the school project.

“I struggled mightily with this one. I do believe there should be a ‘do not exceed’ number… but I struggle with giving guidance on a specific number,” FinCom member Andy Payne said. “At the end of the day, it’s a resident decision and I feel that very strongly… My concern is that we collectively [on town boards and committees] don’t necessarily have a good pulse on the resident appetite here. My worry is that without that pulse, we risk not having a supermajority” in the fall, when a two-third majority is required at Town Meeting to bond a project.

Setting a dollar-limit recommendation is “putting the cart before the horse and trying to imagine the will of the town,” said member Tom Sander.

Without first setting parameters for how much money or borrowing capacity to hold in reserve, “I feel like we’d be making a decision without making some of the building-block decisions,” member Gina Halsted said.

Outgoing and non-voting FinCom member Eric Harris was not so circumspect. He proposed a limit of $85 million for a school project in light of the fact that more money will be needed for a community center right after the school is finished. A community center is currently expected to cost at least $13 million. However, the town will have paid off some of its current and future debt by the time that project is bonded and property values will increase, so its total borrowing limit will be higher than it is today.

$85 million “is a reasonable expense for the town. As a Finance Committee, we should say we can spend the amount of money that’s likely to pass [at Town Meeting] and that meets everyone’s needs, not just the school,” Harris said. “I just think we need to pay more attention to building a prudent plan that includes both… I’m worried that the community center is getting pushed off in a way that’s going to piss a lot of people off.”

Design options

Turning to discussion of which of the six design options to recommend, if any, “I believe narrowing down concepts is the School Building Committee’s job. Why should we be operating as a shadow SBC?” Payne said.

FinCom chair Jim Hutchinson disagreed, saying, “We’re not talking about disabling any concepts from being selected by the town; we’re trying to help residents with our opinion, not just on the cost straight up, but on the value of those concepts.”

Although it didn’t take a formal vote, the committee was deadlocked 3-3 on whether to recommend for or against specific designs, though members agreed in principle that the $109 million “FPC” option was not feasible, and that the $49 million repair-only option was not fiscally prudent.

But resident Owen Beenhouwer, an architect and veteran of past School Building Committees, argued that the FinCom should strongly recommend against the repair-only option, saying the last major school project did not go far enough. He implied that the current plan to offer a broad range of options to voters is an overreaction to the negative vote on a single option in 2012.

“I am disturbed at the fact that next year, we are looking at the 25-year anniversary of what I consider to be a bad job in 1994,” he said. “People really want help… people are puzzled with the mountains of information and too many choices to be made, and are looking to the committees to be helpful in some way.”

A repair-only option would be “a bad investment,” Beenhouwer continued. “I speak from experience as an architect that we are pushing the ball down the road. It would be better to turn the task back to the SBC and say ‘try again’ instead of saying it would be acceptable just to do a repair job.”

Officials discuss school voting plan and possible outcomes

Town officials wrestled on Monday night with how to present the various school project choices to voters at the Special Town Meeting on June 9. And the biggest barrier to passage, unlike in 2012, will probably be building cost rather than design.

Even if a plan is approved in June, it still may see some changes; the June vote is only on the cost and the footprint, School Building Committee (SBC) Chair Chris Fasciano noted. In 2011-2012, the “preferred option”—a mostly new, 164,000-square-foot building with a two-story addition for $64 million—morphed into a 140,000-square-foot, $49.9 million building with a one-story addition that was only 35 percent new, once the schematic designs were finished and Town Meeting voted.

As for the mechanics of the vote itself, the tentative plan is to offer all six of the current options for a first vote by paper ballot to residents in the Brooks auditorium and in overflow space in the Reed gym. Then the two concepts with the most votes would go on to s second stand-and-count vote in both venues. Architects will then develop schematic designs for the winner, and there will be a bonding vote in the fall.

A simple majority is required for concept approval in June. The vote to bond the project in the fall will require a two-thirds majority at Town Meeting plus a simple majority at the ballot box shortly thereafter.

If the fall Town Meeting vote doesn’t pass by a two-thirds majority, the next step will depend on how close the vote is. Since the town is not bound by Massachusetts School Building Authority deadlines as it was in 2012, officials can continue to refine concepts and schedule more Special Town Meetings until a project wins approval. However, if the June vote is lopsidedly negative, “it means we missed a step on the way and we’ll have to regroup and see where we are,” Selectman Jennifer Glass said.

The Finance Committee also spent considerable time on Monday night grilling school officials and architects on details of how they arrived at their cost estimates and assumptions of how big the school building needs to be. Their questions followed up on written answers to dozens of questions that the SBC had submitted before the meeting.

The FinCom will meet on Thursday, May 3 to come up with a recommendation to the town—either for a specific option or “just a set of boundaries,” Chair Jim Hutchinson said. The SBC is trying to leave the decision in the hands of voters as much as possible, but “there will be something coming from our committee to let folks know what we’re thinking” in terms of a preferred concept, Fasciano added.

Residents at Monday’s multiboard meeting offered various other suggestions for the June vote, including allowing voters to choose which educational enhancements they would most like to see, or offering them a choice of three price points rather than specific design concepts.

Feedback from the various public forums so far has been overwhelmingly in favor of a compact building shape offering a high level of educational enhancement over the current school. However, people who attend such forums are often more engaged and informed and tend to be in favor of a project in general, and there will be a much broader cross-section of voters at Town Meeting, Glass noted.

Meanwhile, architects will present a seventh design concept to the SBC this week, and there will be another public forum in May to gauge sentiment and try to narrow down the options to be considered in June.

The June vote will focus only on a school project; the Community Center Preliminary Planning and Design Committee has agreed since the beginning of the planning process that construction on a community center will not start until after the school is complete, most likely in 2023. This is mainly because the school campus does not have space for construction staging areas and student swing space for two simultaneous projects, and there would not be any cost savings since the two projects are of such different sizes that the same contractors would not bid on both, officials said.

This is a disappointment to some seniors in town, including Barbara Low. “is it going to be another 10 years before a community center is looked at because there won’t be any more money [after the school project]?” she said.

But Hutchinson reassured her that town finances will not stand in the way. “We’re pretty comfortable that the community center could fairly quickly follow the school building project,” he said.

Though the bonding for both projects could be done in one go—or even borrowing the full amount for just the school in a single bond issue—this would be the :worst-case scenario,” hutchinson said. “Spreading it out will soften the impact a little bit.”

Current estimates for the school project range from $49 million to $109 million. Finance officials have already determined that the town can borrow up to about $97 million without affecting its bond rating or needing special permission from the state. However, the effect on individual property tax bills will carry more weight when it comes to how people vote, they noted.

“What the town can afford in a debt load/bond rating sense is not necessarily the same as residents’ appetite for expenditure,” FinCom member Andy Payne said. “What will residents be willing to invest in? That’s a very tough question to answer outside the ballot box but we’re trying to figure that out.”

School, community center groups respond to Finance Committee questions

The current Ballfield Road campus.

Committees for the two campus projects have submitted answers to a series of questions from the Finance Committee in advance of two April 30 meetings on project costs.

A multi-board meeting on the campus projects begins at 6 p.m. in the Hartwell B pod, followed by a joint meeting of the FinCom and the Capital Planning Committee from 7:30–9 p.m. A Special Town Meeting on the projects will take place on June 9.

In their answers to the FinCom, both the school and community center committees recommended against building a school project and a community center at the same time, citing the different projects scopes and timelines, construction durations, and problems in using the campus while two projects were under construction simultaneously.

The Community Center Planning and Preliminary Design Committee (CCPPDC) noted that contractors who are able to build a 160,000-square-foot square foot project such as the school do not typically compete for 23,000-square-foot buildings, and “it is likely that using the general contractor and subcontractors that typically handle the bigger, more complex projects for the smaller community center will actually add cost to the community center.”

The School Building Committee offered some FAQs about cost estimates on its website on April 29. Earlier, the SBC responded to a list of questions from the FinCom on:

  • Factors driving the cost per square foot of the various concepts
  • Enrollment projections
  • Space and cost numbers for comparable projects in other towns
  • Incremental costs of specific features such as a new or renovated Smith gym, renovated auditorium, and hubs for grades 3-8
  • Construction cost inflation and escalation
  • Comparisons to revant data form the Massachusetts School Building Authority
  • Operation and maintenance costs (also asked by the CapComm)
  • What’s included in “soft costs”

The CCPPDC was asked to supply figures and assumptions used for capacity planning for the community center design, and to explain why Bemis Hall can’t be renovated for the Council on Aging. The group’s answers are here, with more information on their research here (click on the “Finance Committee information for April 30” tab in the middle of the page).

In a discussion of the square footage sought for the community center, the CCPPDC noted that even newer community centers in other towns have proved to be too small. “The one town our size that offers a senior facility larger than the senior component of the community center says that they are already short on space,” the committee wrote. “Almost all towns we spoke with, including those with quite new facilities, said that they built too small and now need more space. We do not want to make the same mistakes as other towns by assuming that their facilities are adequate for their population when they are not, especially when these mistakes cost towns more in the long run when additions need to be built.”

Residents drill down on school, community center options before June vote

This School Building Committee chart compares the six options on features and cost and also shows total estimated campus costs that include the community center. (click to enlarge).

Residents who packed two workshops on April 10 on the campus building projects were asked for feedback on six school concepts and three community center schemes in preparation for votes at a Special Town Meeting on June 9.

At that meeting, voters will be asked to choose from among the three community center ideas and an as-yet-unknown number of school concepts, though it will be at least two. Firm cost estimates for each will be presented, and there will be two votes in the fall to bond the project. To win approval, Town Meeting must approve by a two-thirds majority; a simple majority is required at the polls.

The footprint, features and cost of the school concepts are described in this six-page summary, which also includes an energy performance analysis for all but one of the concepts, and the added cost to bring each concept into compliance with the “stretch” code (a higher level of energy efficiency than the state’s base building code) and net-zero energy use.

The paper version of the six-page concept summary handed out at Tuesday’s meeting also listed the annual tax bill increase for the median Lincoln taxpayers based on a 4 percent of 5 percent bond interest rates:

School conceptEstimated costAnnual tax increase (4% interest)Annual tax increase (4% interest)Added cost for stretch code compliance/net zero energy efficiency, including solar
R
$49 million$1,329$1,494N/A
L1
$73 million$1,980$2,226N/A
L2
$79 million$2,142$2,409$0 / $6 million
L3
$89 million$2,413$2,714$0 / $6 million
C
$95 million$2,576$2,897$0 / $2 million
FPC
$109 millionAnalysis not yet performed for this optionAnalysis not yet performed for this optionAnalysis not yet performed for this option

Superintendent of Schools Becky McFall outlined the educational advantages of each of the six options:

Option R

  • There would be no educational improvement except for a more consistent temperature climate due to the heating system upgrade.

Option L1

  • The new dining commons between the Brooks gym and auditorium lobby could serve as a learning space for large groups.

Option L2

  • Bringing preK into the main school from Hartwell saves time for staff who serve both preK and K-8, as well as preK students who must sometimes cross the campus, and it also eases the integration of preK children into the school as well as faculty collaboration.
  • Two new flexible-use spaces on each side of the school.
  • Having a single, centrally located lower and middle school office and dining commons  also reduces travel time for students and staff.

Option L3

  • Hub spaces for grades 3-8 where classes can open out into larger collaboration or teaching spaces, and which allow more collaboration among teachers. At the new Hanscom Middle School, which includes hubs, “we find teachers are doing much more conscious planning together, and we see the impact of more integrated curricula being developed,” McFall said. For each grade, the hubs also “create a bit of a community within a community,” she added.
  • A larger commons space than previous concepts, and the space looks out onto the woods, which is less distracting for students.

Option C

  • Having two floors in part of the building reduces transition times for middle schoolers by shortening corridors. “The compactness helps with efficiencies and interactions for both faculty and students, as well as greater sustainability,” McFall said. “I feel like it’s a better design for education.”
  • More space for playing fields

Option FPC

  • Allows for the “optimal” educational program, with three more classrooms than the current school (or options L2, L3 and C), as well as hubs for all nine grades and more athletic field space.
  • This option was recently added at the request of residents who wanted to see what an “ideal” building would look like, so the design is still in flux and it may be more compact building with two floors in some places, McFall said.

Almost every elementary school in Massachusetts designs within the past 10 years includes small breakout rooms and/or larger hub spaces between classrooms, McFall said. The U.S Department of Defense’s education arm, which oversees construction of schools on military bases, mandated this type of design for the Hanscom school. “They did a lot of research, and they’re convinced of it—their analysis shows a true benefit,” McFall said.

Having hubs and breakout rooms “is the catalyst to change… an eruptor that makes you think something else is possible,” said resident Jen Holleran. “This is a generational opportunity.”

The Capital Planning Committee is now researching long-term operating costs for the various options, which would include estimating the financial value of making a greater up-front investment in a more sustainable design, Finance Committee chair Andy Payne said. Any savings on current utility costs would not help pay down the bond but would show up in slower growth in the school’s annual operating costs, he said.

Following the presentation, residents were asked to specify their two favorite options to help the School Building Committee gauge how many concepts should be presented for a vote on June 9. In 2012, the SBC offered only one option for an up-or-down vote that failed to garner the required two-thirds majority, “and we will not make the same mistake—we feel like we have to bring that choice to you,” said Selectman and former SBC chair Jennifer Glass.

Community center

Workshop attendees then saw the three latest concepts for a community center located on the Hartwell side of campus and were asked for feedback on paper. (The fourth concept on the Community Center Preliminary Planning and Design Committee website—putting the facility in renovated Smith school space—is no longer being considered.)

All are 23,000 square feet and include renovation of any remaining standalone Hartwell pods. Scheme 3 calls for having the community center linked to all three pods, with a resulting total cost ($13.5 million to $16.5 million) lower than the estimate for the other two options (both $15 million to $18 million).

There will be a multi-board meeting to discuss more details of how to finance the campus projects on Monday, April 30.

School options draw almost 100 comments; workshops next week

The three campus options that residents were asked to comment on via a sheet handed out at Town Meeting (click to enlarge).

The School Building Committee has compiled comments from dozens of residents who turned in a feedback sheet on three possible campus configurations at the March 24 Town Meeting and posted them here in advance of workshops next week. Those sessions on Tuesday, April 10 at 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. in the Brooks gym will consider both the school and community center projects.

At Town Meeting, residents also saw drawings depicting the latest community center proposals. Many commenters referenced the six school options (R for repair only, L1, L2, L3, C and FPC or full program concept) in their campus comments.

One-third of respondents preferred option #1 (keeping the L-shaped school), and concern about cost was the most common theme in their comments. Comments by the other two-thirds who preferred campus plan 2 focused on educational quality, maintaining or adding playing fields, and sustainabilty. Several also asked for separate votes on the community center, with the school going first.

A basic repair and renovation project with no educational improvements is slated to cost $49 million. At the other end of the spectrum, an almost entirely new school concentrated on the north side of the ballfield would cost $95–$115 million. A community center on the Hartwell side of campus is estimated at $13–$16 million.

There will be a multiboard meeting on Monday, April 30 at 6 p.m. in the Hartwell multipurpose room with an update on the Campus Projects Briefing Document and planning for the June 9 Special Town Meeting where residents will vote on the projects. Immediately afterwards at 7:30 p.m., the Finance and Capital Planning Committees will host a meeting in the same location to discuss project costs, touching on questions such as what those figures include and the current market conditions affecting building costs.

Residents are always welcome to send their thoughts to the SBC via its website contact page.

School and campus ideas come into clearer focus

A feedback sheet handed out at Town Meeting asked residents which of these three campus configurations they preferred (click to enlarge).

Two-thirds of the 120 residents who responded to a short survey distributed at Town Meeting on March 24 said they preferred a campus layout where the school is concentrated on the north side of campus, freeing up the Smith site for another playing field or green space.

One-third of respondents preferred the current L-shaped configuration, while a single respondent chose the third option of putting the community center on the site of the older Smith wing rather than on the Hartwell side of campus.

Residents also saw the latest round of community center concepts, three of which call for replacing one or two of the pods with the new building and rearranging the parking in the Hartwell area. The fourth option, putting the community center on the west side of campus, preserves the historic Smith gym but would be the most expensive choice due to the cost of renovating all three Hartwell pods and a larger-than-needed community center in a renovated Smith wing. It would also require more parking and create more congestion on that side of campus.

The School Building Committee also presented its latest set of design ideas. Prices ranged from $49 million for Option R (repair only), to $109–$115 million for Option FPC (full project concept) with the optimal number of grade-level hubs and classrooms.

The school design that failed to garner a two-thirds majority in 2012 (click to enlarge).

The six school options and four community center options can be considered in various combinations, though if the community center is on the west side, a compact school design would have to be chosen rather than an L-shaped configuration.

Ironically, many who voted against the 2012 school proposal said they were unhappy with trading the L-shaped school for a more compact building on the north side of the ballfield—much like several of the options now under consideration.

Depending on which school and community center options are ultimately chosen, the total up-front cost for the school and community center projects range from $62 million all the way up to $122–$132 million.

“The sheer scale of these investments is, quite frankly, daunting,” said resident Adam Greenberg, adding that the costs have roughly doubled since the 2012 project was defeated, “far and away above rate of inflation.”

This chart offers a feature comparison of six school options plus cost estimates for a community center (click to enlarge).

Though the economy as a whole has seen low inflation in recent years, this is not the vase in construction, SBC Chair Chris Fasciano said, noting that building prices have been going up by 6–10 percent a year. Data presented in the warrant handbook at Town Meeting reveal that school construction costs in surrounding towns have ranged from $361 per square foot for Wayland High School in 2011, to $482 for the Field School in Weston in 2014, to $594 for the Hastings School in Lexington (completion expected in 2020). Also, unlike the 2012 proposals, the latest Lincoln estimates include costs for site work.

The Finance Committee has determined that the town can borrow up to $100 million without affecting its bond rating. State law limits the town to borrowing $97 million in addition to its current debt. Lincoln would need approval from a municipal oversight board to exceed that limit; the town’s bond advisor said “we would have a reasonable case” for exceeding the limit for a school building project but only if there was “strong consensus among the town,” said FinCom chair Jim Hutchinson.

In 2012, “a lot of people didn’t understand that $29 million from the state was not going to be available again,” said resident Maggy Pietropaolo. “The question is not whether we’re going to  spend at least $50 million on a school. The question is, what do you want to get for your money?”

The SBC will hold another pair of community workshops on Tuesday, April 10 at 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. in the Reed Gym, as well as an update for the Council in Aging on Friday, March 30 at 10 a.m. in Bemis Hall. There will also be a multi-board meeting on the campus projects on Monday, April 30. Meanwhile, those who did not attend Town Meeting or turn in the short campus survey may send comments via email to the SBC. A special Town Meeting to choose a school option will take place on June 9.

77% in survey prefer a mostly new school building

An outline of Option B6 with new construction in blue and renovated areas in gray. The new southeast portion would have two floors. (Click image to enlarge.)

The vast majority of residents surveyed after January 23 presentations on options for the Lincoln School preferred the most compact and expensive scheme costing an estimated $89.8 million. Option B6, which concentrates the school on the north side of the ballfield, includes a two-story classroom segment.

The School Building Committee and architects will host a “mini workshop” showcasing work that’s been done since the January 23 workshops on Friday, Feb. 9 at 9:30 a.m. in Bemis Hall.

Of the 156 residents who completed a feedback survey after the two community workshops in January, 77 percent preferred Option B6, which calls for a mostly new building that retains the two gyms and auditorium (see pgs. 38-43 in the January 23 slideshow). Fifteen percent preferred a comprehensive renovation (Option A3.4, pgs. 32-36) with an estimated price tag of $88.3 million, while 5 percent chose the repair-only scheme costing $48.7 million.

The School Building Committee is still going through the written comments in the surveys. However, SBC Chair Chris Fasciano said there had been feedback on the fact that the three comprehensive renovation options (A1.1, A3.4 and B6) call for three fewer classrooms than the school now has, or would have in the “optimal program” concepts shown at the State of the Town meeting in November (excluding the new preK classrooms). “We have asked the design team to come up with concepts that include those classrooms in the plans. We hope to see them soon,” he said.

All of the latest series of options call for moving preK from Hartwell to the main school building, which would also contain an area for school administration while leaving the district administrative offices (superintendent of schools, etc.) at Hartwell. If preK does in fact move, other functions, such as technology might move out of the school and into Hartwell, but “it’s important to note that no final decisions have been made at this point in the SBC process,” Fasciano said.

Some of those who attended the workshops wondered if the school would quickly become too small if the Oriole Landing project, which calls for 60 units of mixed-income housing, is approved and more families with children move into town.

“Most of the housing in Lincoln is single-family housing that could turn over at any time, so flexibility is an important part of any plan. We’re confident that the current designs could accommodate normal fluctuations in student enrollment, including any potential increase from construction at Oriole Landing,” Fasciano said, adding that the 2012 MSBA project had the same number of classrooms as the current essential program.

In addition to the regular SBC meetings (the next is February 13), there are other meetings on the school project coming up. The design team and some of the architects who live in Lincoln will meet on Tuesday, Feb. 13 at 1 p.m. in the Hartwell multipurpose room to explore design ideas for the project concepts. On March 7 at 7 p.m. (location TBA), sustainability consultant Bill Maclay and the desing team will  talk about the sustainability implications of the range of project concepts.

A second set of community workshops will take place on March 13.

Letter to the editor: more coordination needed between building committees

To the editor:

Following the meetings of the Community Center and the School Building Committees during the past couple of weeks, it is clear for me that much work has been done. On the other hand, it is not so clear whether one or the other of these groups perceives it to be their responsibility to seek how to best coordinate or integrate the projects. During the recent meetings, while there was lip service paid to the goal of integration and efficiency, no specific proposals or comments were made. Perhaps such coordination is being left to later, as time does not appear to be anyone’s concern.

At one of the School Building Committee workshops, one of the discussion groups suggested using the part of Smith School that would be demolished under the B6 option for the community center. The SBC had no comment at this moment.

While there is a group seeking to ensure communication between the two groups, it does not appear to me there is any real effort seeking to think of both projects together as one effort. If left to the town to suggest such an approach at Town Meeting, my concern is it will be too late and very confusing.

Sincerely,

Robert deNormandie
45 Trapelo 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.

Workshops focus on three main school project options

The Lincoln School today.

The SBC has narrowed the Lincoln School project options down to three, and architects presented them to residents at community workshops on January 23.

Attendees also heard detailed price estimates from another firm, as well as information on taxation and borrowing scenarios from Finance Committee Vice Chair Andrew Paine, who recapped some of the information from the presentation by FinCom Chair Jim Hutchinson at a multi-board meeting on January 9.

The first set of options considered by the SBC was for an “optimal program” of 178,041 square feet, as shown on pages 7-8 of SMMA architect Joel Seeley’s presentation. (The current building is 148,464 square feet.) Those options ranged in price from $115.6 million to $120.3 million, so the committee asked SMMA to return with some less expensive concepts. The resulting four “A” options retained the L-shaped school on the north and west sides of the ballfield, while the “B” options concentrated just on the north and “C” on the west.

The next round, the “essential program” (pg. 9-10) consisted of eight “A” and “B” concepts calling for 158,171 square feet and ranging from $73.6 million to $100.4 million. The SBC and the architects then added back some of the space cut from the “optimal” concepts to come up with five “essential–refined” options (pg. 11-12) of 160,971 square feet. At this week’s meeting, they presented three options (A1.1, A3.4, and B6) as well as estimates for repair-only and repair-and-renovation options.

  • Repair only – $48.7 million

Install new HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems, add a fire sprinkler system, do accessibility and building code upgrades, replace the roof and the older uninsulated windows, do minimal roadway improvement.

  • Repair plus basic renovation only – $59.2 million

Make the repairs above but replace all windows, do moderate roadway improvements, install new interior finishes (cabinetry, doors, etc), and replace the Smith boiler room.

The three newest options call for:

  • Demolishing some or all of the older Smith building (and more, for Option B6)
  • Adding central administration offices
  • Adding three pre-K classrooms currently located in the Hartwell building
  • Adding a central kitchen and a dining commons area that would also be used for grade-level gatherings, project-based learning or extra art/drama space as needed
  • Adding a connector between the Brooks building and the Reed gym

Two of those options (A3.4 and B6) include hubs for grades 3-8—“neighborhoods” with classrooms as well as breakout, small group, special education, and resource rooms surrounding “a collaboration space providing for flexible, differentiated learning,” SMMA architect Joel Seeley explained. Option B6 calls for demolishing everything except the two gyms, the auditorium section, and the 1994 media center portion. It would consolidate the footprint on the north side of campus, adding a second floor on the east side for grades 7 and 8.

  • Option A1.1 – $75 million (15,538 SF demolition, 29,700 SF new construction) – pg. 27-30 of the presentation
  • Option A3.4 – $88.3 million (10,937 SF demolition, 37,550 SF new construction) – pg. 32-36
  • Option B6 – $89.8 million (72,497 SF demolition, 77,125 SF new construction) – pg. 38-43

The latter three options are not optimal in terms of the number and size of classrooms and hubs—”this is a compromise as we think about the budgetary impact,” said Superintendent of Schools Becky McFall. However, they all represent an upgrade educationally, and Option B6 in particular “offers us a huge improvement in the way we can teach and the way in which kids have the opportunity to learn,” she said.

As teachers in the new Hanscom Middle School have discovered, hubs and spaces of varying sizes “have been a catalyst for thinking about the ways we teach,” McFall said. “We need spaces like this to give students the opportunity to work in teams, foster social and emotional interactions, be curious and problem-solve and debate. This allows us that flexibility to be creative.”

Option B6 may also offer the most flexibility for a future addition if there should be a spike in school enrollment, and Seeley said future refinements might indicate ground-level or vertical expansion possibilities. One resident worried that the town could outgrow the school more quickly than expected if 60 new units of mixed-income housing are approved.

Repair estimates have gone up

The estimated cost of a repair-only project has jumped from Dore and Whittier’s $29.2 million in 2015 to $48.9 million for a project beginning in the second quarter of 2020. However, the 2015 figure did not include any improvements to roads and parking, landscaping, stormwater management, or utility infrastructure, nor did it take into account the cost of phasing or temporary accommodations for students during construction.

The latest cost estimates were prepared by owner’s project manager Daedalus Projects using data from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, which tracks all school construction spending in the state. The cost of new construction has climbed from an average of $367 per square foot in 2015 to a projected $471 in 2019, said Shane Nolan, senior project manager at Daedalus. Contributing factors include a building boom in Boston’s Seaport district and construction of the casino in Everett, which are leading to labor shortages and high demand for materials and equipment, he said.

Borrowing limits

Echoing Finance Committee Chair Jim Hutchinson’s statements at a multi-board meeting on January 9, FinCom Vice Chair Andrew Payne said that Lincoln’s bond advisors have indicated that the town could borrow $100 million for the school and community center projects and perhaps more while still maintaining its AAA bond rating.

State guidelines set a bond debt limit for Lincoln of $106 million (the town currently has about $9 million in outstanding debt), but since the bonding would go toward a school and a community center, getting approval to go over that limit should be “straightforward,” he added.

Property tax impacts

What will this mean for property tax bills? If the town borrowed $100 million over a 30-year period, property tax bills could go up by as much as 20 percent, with the average single-family tax bill climbing from $15,185 in fiscal 2017 to $17,702, assuming a bond interest rate of 4 percent (pgs. 13 and 15 of the FinCom’s presentation). The committee’s scenarios use bond interest rates of 4 and 5 percent, though the current rate is just below 3 percent (pg. 18).

To cushion the blow, the FinCom recommends using some of the town’s debt stabilization fund (currently $4.7 million) to pay down some of the balance for the first two or three years of debt service, so a 15 percent tax hike could be “smoothed” to three years of 5 percent increases.

Comments from several residents indicated mixed feelings. While many cringed at the potential tax hike, most also dismissed the repair-only or repair-and-renovation options, and some even wondered whether classrooms could be added.

On Tuesday, Jan. 30, residents will hear about possible designs and costs for another major construction project: the community center. There will be identical sessions from 8–10 a.m. and 7–9 p.m in Hartwell pod B.

Considering and comparing school options on Tuesday

An important milestone in planning for the Lincoln School project arrives on Tuesday, when residents will have a chance to voice opinions and ask questions about a range of renovation and construction concepts.

In November and December, architects presented options for a mostly new school (the “B” options) or renovating and adding to the existing building (the “A” options). On January 10, the School Building Committee saw a subset of those concepts: option A1, four variations on option A3, and the least expensive “B” concept. Estimates for those six options start at $73 million, whereas a repair-only project would cost about $48 million. However, cost estimates and building design sketches are very approximate at this stage, the SBC noted.

The identical workshops will be on Tuesday, Jan. 23 from 8–10 a.m. and 7–9 p.m. in the Reed Gym.

At both sessions, the Finance Committee will also provide a high-level overview of updated financial parameters. Preliminary finance numbers were discussed at the multiboard meeting earlier this month. The workshops will serve as an opportunity to make comparisons in advance of a special Town Meeting on June 9, when they will a vote on a preliminary design.

The framework for evaluating choices includes these guiding principles:

Educational program:

  • Create engaging and inspiring learning spaces
  • Foster 21st-century learning skills
  • Facilitate communication and collaboration
  • Optimize connection to the natural environment
  • Integrate pre-K into the Lincoln School

Community:

  • Campus feel — maintain or enhance the connection with the outdoors and other parts of campus
  • C0mmunity spaces — enhance and/or add spaces shared with the community such as the auditorium. a dining commons, and gymnasiums.
  • Sustainability — provide a sustainable, energy-efficient and healthy building
  • Financial responsibility — provide a long-term, financially responsible solution.

SBC consultants are further refining the baseline repair concept to get a firmer understanding of the minimum cost, and they are also working with sustainability expert Bill Maclay to analyze the energy and lifetime sustainability impacts of each concept.