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

school project*

Voters give the go-ahead to school project and community center planning

(Editor’s note: Additional stories about the March 25 Annual Town Meeting will be published this week.)

Lincoln will move ahead with feasibility studies for both a locally funded school project and a community center as a result of votes at Saturday’s Annual Town Meeting.

Residents voted unanimously to release $750,000 that was put aside in 2015 for a new feasibility study that will lead to another town-wide vote a year from now on a specific project to pursue. The money was originally allocated for a project that specifically would have included state funding; in the wake of repeated denials from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, Saturday’s vote means the money can now be used for a project funded solely by the town.

As a result of the vote, residents passed over another warrant article that asked whether Lincoln should apply once again for MSBA funding. School officials have said that the chances of Lincoln getting invited into the funding pipeline again were extremely slim because the Lincoln School is not structurally unsafe or severely overcrowded.

“There seems to be a growing sense of community readiness to move forward,” School Committee Chair Jennifer Glass said. “This will also provide clarity for other decisions in town” such as the community center.

Glass and Finance Committee Chair Peyton Marshall reviewed information they presented at multi-board meetings on January 30 and March 8 about why a major school project is needed, how much it might cost, and the tax implications of various levels of borrowing to pay for it. Consultants Dore and Whittier said in 2014 that basic repairs and required code upgrades for safety and handicapped accessibility will cost at least $30 million.

“That’s a lot of money, but there really is no ‘do nothing’ option,” Glass said; that level of spending would result in a building that’s “safe, accessible, has better air and light, no leaks and comfortable temperatures” but has no other improvements. Depending on what additional options are chosen such as educational upgrades, cafeterias and site work pr even an entirely new school, the project could cost up to $68 million.

“The point of the feasibility study is to narrow [cost estimates] down to some number that we bring to the town, and the town votes on which one of these project concepts to we develop into a real project” at a vote in spring 2018. After that, detailed plans and costs will be finalized and the project will come up for a bonding vote perhaps as soon as Fall 2018, Glass said.

Asked by a resident whether the town could simply reuse the 2012 feasibility study, Glass said, “I recommend not doing that.” That study resulted in a plan that failed to win a two-thirds bonding majority in 2012 for various reasons, including cost and the layout of the new school building and campus. This time around, residents will have a chance to choose form one of two or three design concepts before the funding is put to a vote.

The silver lining of the 2012 defeat is that “we’ve learned some things since then—how to be even more creative with spaces in the building and a sense of how the campus maintains a feeling that everyone is happy with,” Glass said.

Community center vote

With only a handful of “nay” votes, residents also voted to spend $150,000 for a feasibility study for a community center to house the Council on Aging and the Parks and Recreation Department as well as other town groups. A 2015 report by the Community Center Study Committee and its consultant said that a two-story, 22,000-square-foot facility on the Hartwell side of the school campus would cost about $13 million.

The $150,000 appropriation must also win a simple majority at the March 27 town election to move forward.

The feasibility study would result in a conceptual site plan and an updated cost estimate, but there is no timeline for when construction might start. However, the school and community center building committees and architects would work closely together to coordinate planning for the two projects as much as possible. This collaboration would ensure that a community center “can be added to the campus at the right time and in the right location and configuration,” and its construction would “follow at a time that is fiscally responsible,” Selectman James Craig said.

Asked if the two building committees would join to hire a single architect, “the answer is a big maybe,” Glass said. Such a firm would need to have expertise in both types of projects “and they’d have to be a good fit for our endearing and occasionally idiosyncratic town. “If two different firms are used, town and school officials can make collaboration between those firms “a foundational requirement for getting hired,” she said.

Several residents recommended combining the feasibility studies as well as using a single architectural firm. Staff members at a school and community center provide many of the same teaching and counseling functions, said Doug Swain. “Their educational and quality-of-life goals for people in the town of Lincoln are exactly the same and their building needs are almost identical.”

A completely shared space isn’t possible because of state regulations designed to limit access to school children by non-school staff.

Resident Ken Hurd, an architect, said he supports both projects but was not in favor of developing separate schematic drawings for the school and community center. In talking to other architects and engineers, “most of them think this is a bad idea to have two teams working in parallel in trying to master-plan a [campus] site,” he said.

“We really need to hire one architect with two teams in its firm, as well as a good land architect. This is a site and campus planning exercise as well,” said resident Owen Beenhouwer, also an architect. Any firm that’s qualified to design a school “will have more than ample experience in dealing with a smaller building as well.”

“Nothing is off the table in terms of the firm” to be hired, Craig said. “The goal is to have these [projects] be in concert with each other.”

Moving forward, planning for the community center will include refining the exact needs of the COA and PRD in terms of their programming and space usage, as well as considering future uses for Bemis Hall.

Cost implications

Right now, Lincoln is in a good borrowing position compared to other area towns in terms of property tax rate growth and its debt-to-operating-budget, Marshall said. The town could borrow up to $80 million to pay for school and community center projects without endangering its AAA bond rating, he said.

Assuming a 30-year bond at an interest rate of 5 percent and the current median property value of $972,200, the maximum annual average tax increase during the repayment period would range from $929 (for a $30 million bond) to $2,478 ($80 million). The median taxpayer would see a hike of $275-$310 per year for every $10 million the town borrowed, according to page 11 of his handout. The median property tax bill in fiscal 2018 is $13,613.

Officials outline needs and implications of school funding vote

School and town officials made their case for voting to move ahead with a town-funded school project at a multi-board meeting and public forum on March 8.

School Committee chair Jennifer Glass urged residents at Town Meeting on March 25 to vote yes on Article 33, which would allow the town to spend $750,000 on a feasibility study. That money was previously allocated in 2014 with the stipulation that the study would be for a project involving the Massachusetts State Building Authority (MSBA); a “yes” vote would remove that condition. The MSBA has turned down several grant applications from Lincoln due to competition from other schools that are in much worse shape, either structurally or due to severe overcrowding, she explained.

If Article 33 is not approved, residents will be asked to vote on Article 34, which authorizes the town to apply once again for MSBA funding. However, the School Committee and other boards have recommended that voters approve #33 and pass over #34. Theoretically the town could do its own feasibility study while also reapplying to the MSBA, but this runs the risk of wasting the town’s time, effort and money, since the MSBA (even if it granted funding) would require yet another new feasibility study as well as an MSBA-approved architect and owner’s project manager.

“Obviously it’s hard to think about turning away the possibility of millions of dollars,” Glass acknowledged. But the unlikelihood of actually getting that money unless things get much worse—along with other factors like the greater flexibility of a town-only project (especially in conjunction with planning for a community center, which was not permitted in an MSBA-funded school project)—makes this the best way to go, she said.

The new Hanscom Middle School’s layout, with many multipurpose spaces of various sizes,  shows how a building’s design can have educational benefits, officials said. “We are seeing amazing things happening in terms of the way faculty are collaborating on an integrated curriculum and students are collaborating with each other,” said Superintendent Becky McFall.

Even without factoring educational enhancements into a new or renovated building, a project costing at least $30 million is urgently needed just to upgrade worn roofs, boilers and plumbing, HVAC systems and energy-inefficient single-pane windows, Glass said. The school also lacks sprinklers, has cramped kitchens and uncontrolled entrances, and is using converted closets for special services, she added.

If everything goes without a hitch, the earliest that construction could begin is late summer or fall 2019, with completion taking at least two years depending on the scope of the project, Glass said.

Future votes

After this month’s Town Meeting, there will be two more town-wide votes: one to choose a project concept and budget range (probably at Town Meeting a year from now), and another vote to bond the project in fall 2018 after final plans are developed.

“No solution gets chosen without a town vote—this is full-on town participation,” Glass said.

The second vote to choose a design concept was not undertaken in 2012. “We know that that is a really important step for the town to make,” she said, noting that the school campus “has a certain feel and is the heart of the community in many ways.”

Some of the data from the previous school studies can be used again, including data on the current facilities conditions, the educational program needs, possible building footprints and the optimal orientation of the building, the number of classrooms needed, etc. Still to be determined is the exact building layout and room configurations, site planning on roads, parking and pathways (especially as they may also affect a possible community center on the Hartwell side of the campus), and choosing major systems and construction materials, Glass said.

Tax implications

Finance Committee chair Peyton Marshall outlined Lincoln’s property tax situation now (generally favorable compared to eight peer towns) and how it would change after a major bond issue. He showed how much tax bills would go up depending on how much money the town borrowed and the interest rate (either 4% or 5%). The numbers assume that the town will use its debt stabilization fund to smooth the impact.

Bottom line: there would be a median annual tax increase of $275 to $300 for every $10 million that the town borrowed. The median tax bill in fiscal 2018 is $13,613.

Letter to the editor: time to move forward with a school project

letter

(Editor’s note: There will be a multi-board meeting and forum on Wednesday, March 8 at 7 p.m. in the Brooks Gym. This is the second such meeting in recent weeks about the school project; click here for coverage of the first multiboard meeting on January 30.)

To the editor:

Last April, Lincoln again applied for state funding for a school building project from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). In December, the town learned that we were not invited into the 2016 funding pipeline. After careful consideration, we, the members of the Lincoln School Committee (LSC), have voted unanimously to recommend that the town move forward independently and begin planning a Lincoln-funded school building project. This is an opinion that we have shared openly with other boards and that we introduced to the public at the January 30 multi-board meeting. It has since been endorsed by multiple town boards and committees.

The purpose of the January 30 meeting was to launch a community process that we hope will bring the town to consensus on a Lincoln School building project. The first decision will be made at the March 25th Annual Town Meeting. The LSC is bringing forth for the town’s consideration two warrant articles that represent two different pathways:

  • Article 33: Using the money we already set aside in 2015, will the Town permit the School Committee to begin planning a Lincoln-funded project? OR
  • Article 34: Should the Town continue to re-apply to the MSBA?

The LSC views these articles as an either/or choice representing two distinct pathways and timetables. The School Committee recommends voting “yes” on Article 33 and passing over Article 34.

Article 33

As stewards of the school, we believe the time has come to act independently for the following reasons:

  • The Lincoln School’s building systems are at increasing risk of failure, and the fiscally responsible approach is to address the deficiencies with a thoughtfully planned single project.
  • We are committed to creating a learning environment that supports the town’s educational vision.
  • There has been considerable community engagement over the past five years, and a growing consensus that a school project is one of the town’s top priorities.

Certain systems in the school, such as the roof and boilers, are on borrowed time. With immediate action, the earliest completion date for a renovation project is late 2021. Waiting to act lengthens the timeline and increases the risk of a costly infrastructure failure that would force us to reactively spend millions of dollars.

Since 2002 when the Capital Planning Committee first recommended a comprehensive approach to addressing the school’s capital needs, the town has conducted five studies of the facility. Each study has confirmed the idea that it is fiscally prudent to thoughtfully plan a project that holistically addresses the school’s infrastructure needs.

For the past several years, because we sought to maximize the impact of the town’s investment, the LSC asked for town support to seek MSBA funding. Yet, since we applied last April, we have learned more about the current competitiveness of the MSBA process. The MSBA uses weighted criteria to evaluate proposals, including:

  1. Is the building structurally sound?
  2. Is there severe overcrowding?
  3. Is there a threatened loss of accreditation?
  4. Does the district foresee future overcrowding?
  5. Are the major systems obsolete?
  6. Will there be short-term enrollment growth?
  7. Are the educational spaces outdated?

The Lincoln School, like many around the Commonwealth, falls firmly into categories #5 and #7. Many districts around us, however, are also facing severe overcrowding, and there are some facilities around the Commonwealth that are considered unusable. The MSBA is using its limited resources to fund projects around the state that fall squarely within categories #1 and/or #2. We believe that with the current focus on these top two criteria, we are unlikely to receive state support in the foreseeable future, and that given the condition of the building, the responsible financial choice is to move ahead on our own.

Supporting high-quality public education is one of Lincoln’s core values. This goes beyond academic rigor, encompassing a vision of education that is innovative, engaging and inspiring. To realize that vision, we know we need highly effective educators in an environment that supports teaching and learning. Lincoln consistently supports the educational program, and now it is time to invest in our infrastructure. Our goal is a school facility that fosters collaboration and communication, is flexible and sustainable enough to meet educational needs for decades to come, and is safe and accessible to, and supportive of, all our learners.

Finally, for the past five years the LSC has worked with the citizens of Lincoln to cultivate a shared vision of education, and an understanding of the Lincoln School building’s deficiencies. Among the several hundred people who have engaged in this process, the public has indicated consensus on several points:

  • Maximizing educational benefits is the community’s first priority when evaluating a potential project.
  • A minimum investment of $30 million (2014 estimate) is required to achieve a responsible repair project that addresses basic infrastructure and meets current safety, structural and accessibility codes.
  • In order to achieve an education-focused transformation of the building, a significantly greater investment will be required. According to several studies, the potential cost is $40-$65 million.
  • This cost range is based on the 2014 Dore & Whittier estimates commissioned by the School Building Advisory Committee II (SBAC II); the total cost of the project proposed in 2012 was $50 million.
  • When asked at the 2014 State of the Town Meeting, those present demonstrated strong support for a transformative project, even if we need to pay for it on our own.
  • Many residents are also interested in building a community center on the Lincoln School campus and favor a parallel planning process.
  • A school project will be a major community investment. It is important to build on the community’s demonstrated engagement in planning these projects.

Approving Article 33 is the first of three votes the town would take to plan and achieve a revitalization of the Lincoln School. Community input has been and will continue to be crucial in planning for the choices the Town will make at each of these stages. The following “feasibility study” process is based on a standard project management model:

  1. After a “yes” vote on Article 33, the School Committee appoints a School Building Committee to choose an architect, hire an owner’s project manager, and develop a series of project concepts and budget estimates from which the town will choose.
  2. The town votes to choose a project concept and estimated budget range. This determines key components of the project such as the number and types of spaces needed, and the footprint of the building.
    — Preliminary design phase: After the town chooses a concept, the architect and Building Committee will do preliminary site planning and choose major systems and materials such as heating/ventilation, roofing, exterior materials, windows, insulation, lighting, and plumbing.
    — Two independent cost estimates are commissioned and reconciled.
  3. The town votes to bond the project, beginning the final phase:
    — Final design development: The Building Committee and architect choose interior finishes, finalize site plans, and create construction drawings.
    —The construction contract is put out to bid, is awarded, and the project begins.
Article 34

Article 34 asks whether the town should re-apply for funding from the MSBA. The LSC has advocated for this pathway over the past couple of years, but now believes that our near-term acceptance into the funding pipeline is highly unlikely given both the level of need around the state, and the MSBA’s available resources. As outlined above, large infrastructure items such as the roof and the heating system are at an increased risk of failure, and even the most ambitious project schedule takes four years. The LSC recommends voting “yes” on Article 33 and passing over Article 34.

Why not vote “yes” on both articles?
  • One advantage of funding a project on our own is that we are not constrained by MSBA limitations on building and site use, thus facilitating parallel planning with a community center.
  • Potential waste of taxpayer money: If we spend money to develop a project on our own and then receive an invite from the MSBA, we would have to put that work aside and begin a new, state-approved process. This would mean appropriating more money, hiring a state-approved architect and owner’s project manager, and starting the work again. This also delays planning for a community center project.
  • Respect for the town’s human capital. During the most recent study of the Lincoln School, SBAC II meetings consumed over 110 hours of our educators’ and fellow citizens’ time. The LSC wants to ensure that we are using our human resources judiciously and productively.

Questions? Want more information? Please join us at the multi-board meeting and forum on March 8 at 7 p.m. in the Brooks Gym.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Glass, chair (on behalf of the Lincoln School 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.

Officials offer school recommendations, borrowing estimates

Saying “we believe it’s time to act on our own,” School Committee Chair Jennifer Glass outlined next steps for a town-funded school project at a multi-board meeting earlier this week.

Glass told the Board of Selectmen last month that her group recommended not applying again for state funding, but start the planning process for a school project that the town would pay for by itself. At the multiboard meeting, she explained the committee’s reasoning, while Finance Committee Vice Chair Jim Hutchinson outlined some funding and property tax scenarios.

There will be two warrant articles at Town Meeting next month—one on whether to spend a previously approved $750,000 on a town-funded school feasibility study, and another on whether to reapply for state funding—but “we see that as a fork in the road, an either/or choice,” Glass said. The increased competition for state grants and the immediate needs of the Lincoln School from both facilities and educational standpoints mean that waiting any longer is not the best option, she said.

Previous meetings and votes indicate that there is community consensus on four points:

  • The education value of a school project is a top priority
  • Residents understand that the town will have to spend a minimum of $30 million for a “responsible project”
  • There is “strong support” for a project that would cost $45 million to $60 million even without state funding
  • There is interest in planning collaboration for a school project and community center

The cost estimates were provided by Dore and Whitter in their report in late 2014. At that time, they outlined three groups of renovation and construction options and price ranges:

  • 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 new feasibility study process would again outline the school’s needs, the town’s educational and community vision and building options, as well as an eventual a decision on one option to put forward for a town vote. The Dore & Whittier report did some of this but did not include faculty input, nor did it address the overall site plan in terms of roadways, athletic fields, etc., Glass noted.

Borrowing costs

Although construction costs have climbed since 2014, interest rates have remained steady, Hutchinson said. The Finance Committee has consulted with bond advisors and concluded that the town can borrow up to $80 million without losing its AAA bond rating, which affects future borrowing costs. That level of borrowing would drive the town’s debt-to-operating ration from the 3-4% range up to 12-13%, he said.

To soften the tax impact, the Finance Committee recommends additional steps such as repaying the bonds over 30 years rather than 20. Also advisable is a “level debt” whereby annual payments would remain the same, though they would effectively decline as a percentage of revenue over time due to inflation, Hutchinson said. Although the town has a debt stabilization fund, spending all of it is not a good idea, because “there are always unanticipated things that happen to towns and we need to have some kind of buffer,” he added.

Another way to spread out the repayments would be to borrow for a community center and a school project separately “and put it in two lumps rather than one big lump,” Hutchinson said.

Voters at Town Meeting will be asked for a $150,000 appropriation for a feasibility study by a community center building committee that would work alongside the new school building committee. The Board of Selectmen would “mandate cooperation between the two,” Selectman Peter Braun said.

One advantage of not involving the MSBA is it frees the town from having to clearly separate design and planning for a school project and a community center, Glass noted.

Property tax impact

What does this mean for Lincoln taxpayers? Hutchinson did not have final estimates this week (the committee will present them at another multi-board meeting on March 8), but an earlier analysis that assumed a 4.6% interest rate and a more aggressive repayment schedule showed that tax bills would rise by $367 per year on a median-value home for every $10 million that the town borrowed. The median home value is $883,000, so someone with a home of that value would pay an additional $1,101 per year if the town borrowed $30 million, for example.

However, Hutchinson noted that interest rates are actually lower than the projected figure (about 3.4% right now), so the repayment cost would be lower than the example—more like $300 per $10 million borrowed, he said.

Even if the town decided on a “repair-only” direction, it would not be eligible for Massachusetts School Building Authority funding, Glass said. The MSBA has two grant programs: the core program and the “accelerated repair” program, which funds individual repair projects such as roofs and boilers. However, schools who get the second type of funding have no other major facilities or educational flaws aside from the isolated issue, and Lincoln does not meet that standard.

Other area towns have done town-funded school projects in recent years, including a new elementary school in Brookline and a replacement for the Zervas School in Newton. Lexington has done several projects, some with MSBA funding and some without. Wellesley has been turned down by the MSBA several times for a project that would consolidate three elementary schools into two and is also contemplating going it alone, Glass said.

One focus of debate is sure to be which major project to do first. The Council on Aging and the Parks and Recreation Department are advocating for a community center and have suggested that if it were built first, some of its space would be used by the school while staged school construction work was taking place.

But resident Ken Hurd disagreed. “My preference would be if the focus is really the school because this is what we need the most. We’re going to attract more people if we have the school situation resolved. A community center is nice is nice and we need it, but it’s not going to bring people to Lincoln,” he said.

“Town leadership should take a position on what the priorities should be,” said Steve Perlmutter, a member of the 2014 School Building Advisory Committee.

 

School Committee recommends Lincoln-only school project; multiboard meeting Monday night

The School Committee has voted unanimously to recommend that the town move forward with a Lincoln-funded school project and not reapply for state funding.

There will be a multi-board meeting on Monday, Jan. 30 at 7 p.m. in the Brooks gym to discuss the school project. In an earlier announcement about that meeting, the committee said it would sponsor two Town Meeting warrant articles: one asking whether the town should go ahead and spend $750,000 that was appropriated in 2015 on a feasibility study for a town-funded school project, and whether to apply again to the Massachusetts State Building Authority (MSBA) for a grant.

“We view these two articles as either/or,” School Committee Chair Jennifer Glass told the Board of Selectman at its January 25 meeting. “We’re saying we’ve reached a point where there are two directions and we’re asking the town which way we should go, and our recommendation is to go the first way.”

The physical condition of the Lincoln School and the need for educational improvements means that continuing to hope for uncertain MSBA funding is no longer a good option, according to Glass. “Each year we delay in this process, we risk failure of some major system such as a roof or boiler,” she said, adding that construction costs have “gone up pretty dramatically” over the past several years.

As the School Committee has learned more about the workings of the MSBA, it’s also become less confident that it will be invited into the funding pipeline again anytime soon, Glass said. Meetings with MSBA officials after the 2016 and 2016 rejections have shown “just how competitive a process it is… and have given us a pretty clear-eyed vision of where we are in terms of those [MSBA funding] criteria,” she said.

There is also some level of community agreement that a town-funded school is the best option at this point, Glass added. “We’ve built a lot of excitement and consensus that it’s time to address this. It feels like there’s this moment of opportunity,” she said. Furthermore, those hoping for construction of a community center “will have clearer path when we figure out what’s going on with the school.”

Applying to the MSBA while also pursuing a Lincoln-funded project “would send a mixed message to the state” and would also risk wasting its $750,000 outlay, because if Lincoln eventually got invited into the MSBA funding pipeline, it would have to do a completely new feasibility study, Glass said. Similarly, the School Committee is unwilling to waste the effort of another School Building Committee in the event state money ever appeared.

“It is incredibly intense to be on a School Building Committee,” she said. “I’m not comfortable asking our fellow townspeople to make that kind of investment and then say ‘Whoops, sorry, we’re putting that aside and were going to start again and hire a new architect and a new OPM [owner’s project manager]… it feels like we just need to decide.”

Glass concluded by saying her panel will seek support for its position from as many town government bodies as possible, including the Board of Selectmen.

“I commend the School Committee for putting a stake in the ground on this,” Selectman Peter Braun said.

Faced with the need to borrow a substantial sum of money, selectmen said they hoped the Finance Committee would be receptive to increasing the town’s debt stabilization fund, which currently stands at about $3.7 million. “As a town, we need to start examining what strategies we can take for a large-scale [funding] process,” Selectman James Craig said.

Town to grapple once again with future of school project

At Town Meeting in March, residents will have yet another chance to chart a course for a multimillion-dollar school project—going it alone, or seeking partial state funding for the fifth time. But barring a major crisis at the Lincoln School, state funding is looking increasingly unlikely as the competition for grants gets fiercer by the year.

Lincoln won a $21 million grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authority in 2009, contingent on a two-thirds majority approval from residents at Town Meeting—but that eventual 2012 vote fell short. The town has reapplied three times since then and been turned down each time. Just before Christmas, officials learned that the town was again denied entry into the state school funding pipeline.

As Lincoln officials are now realizing, the 2009 MSBA approval was at least partly a matter of luck because the MSBA as a funding entity had been created only the year before, and Lincoln was ready to pounce because it had recently done a facilities study and thus happened to have its “ducks in a row” more than many competing towns, School Committee Chair Jennifer Glass said at the January 9 Board of Selectmen meeting.

Glass and other Lincoln officials learned through recent conversations with the MSBA that nowadays, there is a “very high bar” for getting state funding approval. Most schools that were invited into the funding pipeline last year have a major structural deficiency to the extent that the building is uninhabitable (for example, a collapsed roof or flooding in the entire building), severe overcrowding, or a threatened loss of accreditation. This is something that usually happens only to high schools, Glass noted, and it was a significant factor in Minuteman High School getting its $44 million state pledge last year.

Each year, the MSBA evaluates a new set of applications; there is no waiting list or preference for schools like Lincoln’s that have previously won approval. “It’s a clean slate every year,” Glass said. “Our applications are very through and they understand our needs… we haven’t done anything wrong since [2009].”

Glass asked the selectmen to hold spots for two Town Meeting warrant questions: whether to reapply for MSBA funding, and whether to begin pursuing a town-funded project by spending $750,000 appropriated by voters in 2015 on a feasibility study. Theoretically, the town could do both; “we’re welcome to spend $750,000 of our own money and reapply [to the MSBA, but] if we were invited in, that feasibility study would be put on the shelf and we would start again,” since the state would require a newer one, Glass said.

Performing the feasibility study “does not commit us to any certain project or dollar amount,” Glass said. The final study would have to focus on one design for the school, but this time, there could be the “missing step [where we] narrow the choice down with a lot of public input,” Selectmen Peter Braun said. One reason cited for the 2012 defeat is that residents did not have enough say about the proposed project’s building and campus design, and many objected to the proposal for compromising the circular central ballfield.

“We need to put all the choices out there and let the people tell us,” Brain said.

Beginning with a multi-board meeting on Monday, Jan. 30, there will be a series of public conversations to consider the town’s options and to understand the choices in the context of Lincoln’s priorities and finances. These conversations will be ongoing; everyone’s input and questions are needed, and residents are encouraged to attend as many sessions as possible.

The schedule is as follows:

  • January 30 — Multi-board meeting, 7 p.m., Brooks Gym. This will be a joint meeting of the School Committee, Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee and Capital Planning Committee.
  • February 10 — Council on Aging public forum, , 12:30 p.m., Bemis Hall. Superintendent Becky McFall and School Committee Chair Jennifer Glass will discuss the Town Meeting warrant articles related to a building project, and give an overview of the FY18 school operating budget. In addition, Town Administrator Tim Higgins will give an overview of the FY18 town budget.
  • March 8 — Multi-board public forum, 7 p.m., location TBD — Hosted by the School Committee, Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee and Capital Planning Committee.
  • March 17 — Council on Aging public forum, 12:30 p.m., Bemis Hall. Superintendent Becky McFall and School Committee Chair Jennifer Glass will discuss the Town Meeting warrant articles related to a building project.

State says no to Lincoln school funding for the third time

The state agency overseeing school project funding informed Lincoln today that the town would not be invited into the funding pipeline for a school project in 2017. This third rejection means residents must once again decide whether to wait and reapply next year, or proceed with an entirely town-funded school project.

Lincoln submitted was among the 89 school districts that submitted statements of interest to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) this year, according to a letter from School Committee chair Jennifer Glass and Selectman Peter Braun. It was unclear how many of those proposals made the first cut. In 2015, there were 97 applications to the MSBA’s core program (the segment dealing with substantial renovation or reconstruction of schools); 26 were chosen for further consideration and eight were invited into the funding pipeline.

“From previous conversations with the MSBA, we know that there is a very high bar in evaluating applications, and that structural deficiencies, overcrowding and threatened loss of accreditation hold significant weight in the process. Lincoln does not qualify based on the second and third criteria, and interpreted literally, the structure of the building is not in danger of failure,” Glass and Braun said. “However, in the next couple of weeks, we will be in communication with the MSBA to try to learn whether the Lincoln School’s significant infrastructure and systems deficiencies might qualify us for invitation by the MSBA in the near future.”

Four years earlier, the MSBA offered to pay $21 million toward a new school costing $49 million if residents agreed by a two-thirds majority to fund their share. But the margin at a Special Town Meeting in November 2012 was 370-321 votes (54 percent to 45 percent), so the funding offer was withdrawn and the town had to begin the process all over again. The MSBA also declined to offer funding in 2013 and 2015. At Town Meeting in March 2016, residents overwhelmingly approved the latest application to the MSBA.

In 2014, consultants Dore and Whittier determined that the school needed immediate work costing $8.4 million including a new roof for the entire building, a new exterior wall for the Reed Gym, and a new boiler room and pumping equipment for the Smith building. However, even if residents approved funding for that work, the town would have to spend several million dollars more, because by state law, when school renovation costs exceed a certain percentage of the building’s assessed value, the building must also be brought up to current code for handicapped accessibility. For the Lincoln School, the trigger point in 2014 was about $6.5 million.

Meeting only the immediate and near-term facilities needs of the school with no educational improvements or cafeteria would cost more than $27 million, the consultants said, while a comprehensive project meeting all facilities and educational needs would cost almost $60 million.

The School Committee, Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee and Capital Planning Committee will hold a multi-board meeting on January 30 at 7 p.m. in the Hartwell multipurpose room to discuss any additional information received from the MSBA and to chart a path forward. “This will be the first of several public outreach sessions before any potential school building-related warrants are voted on at Town Meeting, and we hope that all members of the community will lend their voices to the process,” Glass and Braun said.

 

Residents vote to try for school funding again

schoolBy Alice Waugh

The town will apply for the fourth time for state funding for a comprehensive school building project after residents overwhelmingly voted to authorize it at Town Meeting on March 19.

A year ago, residents authorized the third application to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) and to set aside $750,000 for a feasibility study in the event that the Lincoln School was invited into the funding pipeline. However, the MSBA turned down Lincoln’s request in December 2015, and a 2013 application was also turned down. The MSBA gave conditional funding in 2012 but the project failed to win residents’ support.

Last summer, in a visit that state Sen. Michael Barrett helped to arrange, numerous officials from both the MSBA and the town toured the school to see the facilities issues first-hand. Although this year’s funding bid was ultimately unsuccessful, the MSBA “assured us that our statement of interest that was thorough and they understood the needs of our building,” said School Committee chair Jennifer Glass. “I believe we made a pretty compelling case that day that we had come together as a town.”

In 2015, there were 97 applications to the MSBA’s core program (the segment dealing with substantial renovation or reconstruction of schools); 26 were chosen for further consideration and eight were invited into the funding pipeline in December, though more are expected to be invited in later this year, Glass said.

MSBA officials told Glass and Superintendent of Schools Becky McFall that last year’s funding applicants included many schools that were faced with overcrowding or the possible loss of accreditation because of their physical condition, Glass said, adding that they encouraged Lincoln to apply again.

“Partnering with the MSBA is fiscally responsible and we believe it’s worth the wait,” she said.

A vote against Article 28 (pursuing MSBA funding again) and a “yes” vote on Article 29 would have authorized the town to spend last year’s $750,000 allocation on a feasibility study for a project funded solely by the town.

Glass acknowledged that there was no guarantee that the MSBA would invite Lincoln into the funding process next year, raising the question of when Lincoln should turn to its own resources.

“There’s not a clear answer as to that deadline—it’s a topic we struggle with,” she said. “But for right now, we can afford to be patient… the building certainly has its deficiencies, but it’s not going to fall on our heads, and we’re going to keep it safe.”

In the past couple of years, the school’s most urgent facilities needs have been funded by appropriations from the Capital Planning Committee. “We have had a few projects that really were dire,” McFall said, referring to a project last year that replaced electric switching gear, “so we’ve taken back the fear that the electrical system would go down and we would not be able to restart it again,” she said. “It backed us off the cliff a bit,”

SImilarly, there were fears that the smokestack outside the Brooks auditorium was in danger of falling gown, but money was allocated to inspect it and perform some repairs, “so we’re assured we’ll get through at least the next couple of years, and we’ll keep inspecting it,” McFall said.

The school roof is on ongoing concern. “Whenever we have a rainstorm, the buckets come out. It’s not going to fall in, but it leaks consistently,” McFall said.

Not everyone in agreement

But a few residents at the meeting were not in favor of applying for state funding yet again.

“I’m not particularly comfortable with that,” said Adam Greenberg. “The MSBA has its own view of things that may not include Lincoln in a year. I find this merry-go-round where we keep grabbing for the MSBA brass ring to be unsuccessful. I don’t see this as a way forward in a realistic sense.”

Greenberg suggested applying one more time but then planning to pursue a different course if the town is unsuccessful with the MSBA once again.

“To have the strongest case, we need to show that we recognize that [passing Article 28] is the way forward to achieving both facilities and educational needs,” Glass said. “I think it’s really important right now to show we understand how important help from the state is, and that’s what will make it a viable project.”

“The message from town needs to be overwhelming in favor of Article 28,” said Vincent Cannistraro, who urged a “resounding no” on Article 29 as well. “I don’t feel passing over 29 goes far enough,” he said. If it looked like residents were willing to go it alone without state funding, “what would you do if you were the MSBA? I think the message needs to be consistent,” he said.

Cannistraro’s position was an evolution from his stance in 2014, when he ran against incumbent Selectman Peter Braun. At the time, citing his construction background, he disputed the notion that a new school would cost $50 million and repairs would cost $30-$40 million.

It would be wrong to send the message that “we’re not even going to try without state help,” another resident said. “I can imagine then passing us over again. I don’t think we should be waiting to find out whether we can possible get help from the government. I would find it hard to believe that if we don’t get [a funding invitation] next year, we’re going to get it again” the following year, she said.

Last week, the Board of Selectmen as well as the Finance, Capital Planning and School Committees unanimously recommended passage of Article 28.

“We’ve got to show patience and tenacity here,” Selectman Noah Eckhouse said. “As a matter of history, we got invited [into the funding process] before we were really ready” in 2012.

Residents will get to vote on school configuration

One reason for 2012 school project’s failure to garner the necessary two-thirds majority is that many residents objected to the new layout of the school and campus in the “preferred option” approved by the MSBA. However, “the MSBA did not impose anything on us,” Glass said.

The town’s feasibility study identified 11 different options for the school, and for reasons of construction phasing and greater energy efficiency, “there was sort of a fork in the road” where the School Building Committee (SBC) opted to go with a different building configuration,” Glass said.

“A major mistake we made in 2012 was that when the SBC was trying to decide between different directions, there were outreach and information sessions, but no formal town vote saying ‘A or B, what do you like?’ and then we’d give it to MSBA,” Glass said. This time, “whatever process we’re in, we will not go forward with a preferred option until we have come to the town and said, ‘Here are some choices; let’s collectively agree on that concept before we get into final details of design’.”

“It’s not just about the money,” Cannistraro said. “If the town went on its own with the Lincoln Way, we’d finish three years later and that $30 million would turn into $60 million in a heartbeat and we wouldn’t get something as nice.” When it comes to building schools, “that’s [the MSBA’s] area of expertise and that’s the most important reason we need the.”

Letter to the editor: vote ‘yes’ on Article 28

letter

To the editor,

I am writing to urge all to come to Town Meeting this coming Saturday and to support, with a resounding “yes” vote on Article 28.

Once again we are at a fork in the road, and we must make a choice to move forward. We have all the critical pieces in place to make the choice to begin a collaborative process to rebuild our community campus, beginning with our schools. There are two potential directions to take. One is to seek constructive and fruitful collaboration with the Commonwealth. This is a reliable path with an experienced partner, and it is critical to build what is necessary for a 21st-century education that we can be proud of. Lincoln cannot do this alone.

The other is to attempt to travel down an unpredictable path, without any financial contribution or technical support from the Commonwealth. The first choice, offered and advocated for by the School Committee in Town Meeting in Article 28, is to reaffirm our desire to seek collaboration with the Massachusetts School Building Authority.

At last year’s Town Meeting, we strongly supported an application to work with the MSBA. Now, with additional work done during the past year, we have even more pieces in place to assure the state that we are ready willing and able to commit to a project with the Commonwealth’s guidance and financial support.

We have conducted studies of the Lincoln School’s programmatic and space needs to ensure an education for the 21st century, the most recent being presented by the School Building Advisory Committee II in February 2015.

We have completed an analysis of the programmatic and space needs for the rest of our community, served through our Council on Aging and our Parks and Recreation Department. This study was finalized in March 2015. In the course of many public meetings, it was determined that the best location for expansion of services would be on the campus, in spaces already in community use.

And finally, we have just received the final report of the Campus Master Planning Committee, which was discussed at the 2015 State of the Town meeting, completed in January 2016, and will be presented at Town Meeting. This study provides a critical overview and provides technical analysis of the physical, regulatory and infrastructure challenges and opportunities offered by the 71.5 acres of our campus.

This analysis does not offer building designs but rather provides clear outlines and constraints of zones for future development. Each zone can serve separate and distinct functions, with a variety of choices for school construction zones that are separate and distinct from other community-use zones. The study and public presentations have made it clear that each zone has trade-offs. These choices will be made after we know our direction with our school building project. And it is clear that having the Commonwealth as a partner as we approach these choices would be best for our schools and the town. A “yes” vote on Article 28 is critical to allowing us to continue on this solid direction.

On the other hand, Article 29 offers an uncertain path that, because of cost, means much less design flexibility and few to no educational enhancements. The School Committee has said they will only ask for a vote on Article 29 if the town fails to pass Article 28. Choosing the path offered in Article 29 would mean embarking on a school building project on our own, without any potential for state funding. This choice is not in our children’s or the town’s best interest.

It is time for the town to come together and give the educational future of our schools a clear and resounding “yes” on Article 28, and to then support the School Committee when it asks us to pass over Article 29. This is the critical first step in realizing our shared vision for our community campus. It is an investment in all our futures. It is the choice at this fork in the road we must take now.

Please vote “yes” on Article 28 and vote to pass over (or vote “no”) on Article 29.

Sincerely,

Sara Mattes
71 Conant 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.

Voters urged to OK a new school funding application

schoolBy Alice Waugh

Four town boards have unanimously recommended that residents authorize the town to apply again to the state for funding for a comprehensive school project.

The Board of Selectmen and the Finance, School, and Capital Planning Committees unanimously voted earlier this week to recommend a “yes” vote on Article 28 at Town Meeting on Saturday. A “yes” vote would authorize the town to apply for funding from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for a comprehensive renovation of the Lincoln School.

In December 2015, the MSBA informed Lincoln officials that the town would not be invited into the funding process for 2016. The application deadline for next year’s funding is in April.

This was the second time that the MSBA has turned down Lincoln’s request. Several years ago, the state approved a $21 million grant for a Lincoln project estimated to cost a total of $49 million, but the project failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority from residents at Town Meeting in 2012. The town also applied in 2013 but did not get invited into the funding process.

“This is a little bit like [the movie] ‘Groundhog Day’,” School Committee chair Jennifer Glass said at a March 14 Board of Selectmen meeting, noting that residents at Town Meeting a year ago voters overwhelmingly to try for new MSBA funding.

The 2015 funding requests from Massachusetts cities and towns included several from school districts with “very severe needs,” Glass said. “There were a number of districts threatened with overcrowding or loss of accreditation due to conditions.”

In discussions with the MSBA after the latest denial, Glass said the agency “understood we had done a lot of work as a town to build consensus and understand what went wrong in 2012.”

If Article 28 is not approved, residents will vote on Article 29, which authorizes spending a previously appropriated $750,000 on a feasibility study for a school project to be funded entirely by the town. The article notes that a project that meets long-range facilities needs and includes educational enhancements will likely require a minimum town investment of $30 million.

“We fully believe that, to achieve a project to meet our educational goals and is fiscally responsible to the town, we must work with the state,” Glass said.

Concerns over rising costs

However, even if voters pass Article 28, “I’m starting to really worry there’ll be a way in which some people in town will think we’re kicking the can and that people will begin to say, ‘OK, if we don’t get the state money, I’m not going to think about what that means or what we need to do,” said Finance Committee member Eric Harris.

Interest rates and construction costs are rising, “and I think $30 million is probably no longer a good estimate of what it will be a year from now” in terms of the minimum cost to the town, with or without MSBA funding, Harris added. “I don’t know what to do about that, but it worries me a little… two years in Lincoln is a long time,” he said.

It’s also possible that MSBA money will never be forthcoming. “Some of us think the chances of getting state money are about as good as the chances of John Kasich getting the nomination—it’s possible but not likely,” Harris said. “I worry we’re piling up enormous expenses that taxpayers have never really had to confront before… is there a backup plan?”

Officials cautiously optimistic

Others were more optimistic about the chances of getting MSBA money. “I believe that tenacity and commitment with the state can mean something. I think we’ve learned a lot and cleaned up our game,” Eckhouse said.

Selectman Peter Braun echoed that sentiment. “I think at the beginning [of recent discussions with the MSBA], we were concerned that maybe that Lincoln is sort of on the blacklist, but now I think the opposite seemed to be true,” he said. “The ears were wide open and the eyes were wide open.”

The MSBA has been “very open to our requests for conversation,” Superintendent of Schools Becky McFall said. “I think all along have shown that they’re open to accepting Lincoln into the process.”

After Lincoln was turned down in December, MSBA program director Diane Sullivan indicated that this round of funding went to meet the needs of “extremely needy schools this year,” McFall said.

“This may pave some opening way in the coming year for schools that might be at our level of need. [Sullivan] expressed that they understood the [Lincoln] facility’s needs and have an assumption that the needs are the same and probably worse given that time has passed and we we have not addressed them, and they highly encouraged us to reapply,” McFall said.

School officials noted that there are no building problems they know of that must be immediately addressed, and that the town has funded expenditures for crucial repair needs as they came up in recent years.

“If something should arise that would affect the safety or operation of the school, we would ask, even if it had to be reversed later” by new construction, Glass said.