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

schools

Letter to the editor: option C offers the most benefits

To the editor:

I’m voting for C on June 9th and I wanted to share my process of elimination of the other four options using SBC’s taxonomy:

Minimum requirements (R and L1): R is essentially opening the hood and starts at $49 million, but doesn’t even address some basic utility issues. Similarly, L1 at $73 million doesn’t take care of 2030 energy requirements. If we’re taking out a 30-year bond, I can’t imagine we would build something with a known compliance issue and kick the can a few years down the road for other repairs/upgrades. As the name suggests, this the “minimum requirements” option set and they are there more for completeness sake.

Upgrading current model (L2): This may be seen as the fiscally responsible, middle-of-the-road option at $8 million, saving 10–15% over the next set of options that offer tangible educational benefits. Yet, this is essentially succumbing to the Goldilocks fallacy when we need to make a capital decision with a 50-year+ horizon—much longer than the bond term. It’s hard for me to imagine spending this kind of money without some tangible educational upside.

Also, people may think that if we go above this amount, we may not fund other capital investments such as the community center because we hit our debt ceiling defined as 5% of Lincoln property assessments. With the upcoming higher property assessment, this is not the case. We can and should treat community center and other projects independently.

Transforming educational spaces (C and L3): Compared to L3, C offers more educational space with less square footage, as the two-story building doesn’t waste space on long hallways etc.; it’s faster to build (32 months vs. 36); creates room for another ballfield; and the compact footprint minimizes walk times, saves time, and improves interactivity. I am also happy with the aesthetics of C and don’t have any nostalgic tie to the L shape. Given the $3.9 million difference (C at $98.7 million vs. L3 at $93.4 million), I can’t see a good reason to go with L3 over C.

I want to thank SBC for taking the time to compile and thoughtfully communicate a ton of information. It made it much easier for me to converge.

Sincerely,

Fuat Koro
1 Sweet Bay Lane

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

To the editor:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jean Palmer
247 Tower Rd., Lincoln

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

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

To the editor:

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

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

Sincerely,

Sarah Cannon Holden, Town Moderator
Weston Rd.

Letter to the editor: invest in the future with option L3 or C

To the editor:

When my family and I moved to the area in 2012, we had not heard of Lincoln. During our lengthy home search, one town stood out for its natural beauty and open-minded people. That town was Lincoln. What started as a home search in many towns quickly became focused to Lincoln and we have now been living here happily for five years.

Our first impressions have only been strengthened. I have gotten to know the town more intimately, as our children have attended school and I have attended every town meeting and (almost) all special meetings. I have been struck by the discourse of the people: regardless of point of view, I have found our discussions thoughtful, and perhaps more importantly, to be coming from a deep love of our town.

The argument that I have heard most often made in these forums is that Lincoln is a special and unique place and we want to keep it so. Depending on the context, the person has referenced our progressive history, manifest in our town recognizing a woman’s right to vote decades before our nation, our town recognizing the architectural beauty in modern design by becoming the home of some of the greatest architects of the 20th century, or our town protecting our environment decades before this was commonplace. In all these cases, Lincolnites saw into the future and took courageous steps against conventional wisdom—in short when we as a town have been at our best, we have been ahead of our time.

I see our school discussion through this prism—my hope is that we continue to strive to be a unique and special place. To me this means that we must strive to create an educational experience for our children that is second to none. I believe that the C or L3 design would be best the way to achieve that, while still being affordable for the town. (I do not mean to presume that it is affordable for all, however.)

I also believe that how we engage with our neighbors is important. It is imperative that we engage in thoughtful and respectful conversation. I worry that we may be beginning to get frustrated with one another—I hope we can all take a step back and remember to be respectful to one another and also allow our opinions to change and be informed by data rather than hearsay or pre-conceptions. For example, it has been valuable to me to hear what educators in town say, rather than relying on my gut or my experience as a student many years ago.

Lastly, I hope as we go to the vote on June 9 that we all keep in the forefront of our minds not the day-to-day frustrations of this long school building discussion, but rather, that we are the current generation of Lincolnites that will pass the torch some day. It is our duty to continue to make this town a forward-thinking, progressive place, willing to invest in its future and remain ahead of its time.

Sincerely,

Hans Bitter
245 Tower Rd., Lincoln

Letter to the editor: vote for school option L3

Editor’s note: This letter originally appeared in LincolnTalk in response to a comment about the environmental impact of demolition.

To the editor:

As you may or may not know, since last fall, a community of local architects has been meeting on an ad hoc basis and have regularly attended the SBC meetings and their public forums. Over the course of this process, we have tried to share our combined expertise with suggestions to the SBC and their design team to create not only a financially viable project but to do so with a bonafide respect for our Lincoln heritage.

We have a gem of an actual campus for our students, and it is truly unique for a public school setting. It fits with Lincoln’s legacy of preserving land in its natural state, and it is an extraordinary experiential lesson for our children on a daily basis: namely, that this community values our open space to the degree that our buildings quietly inhabit the land rather than the opposite—a condition that is unfortunately so prevalent in our current culture.

For what it’s worth, nearly all of this group of local professionals with worldwide experience favor a version of the L3 scheme—partly because we believe we should first and foremost fulfill the educational mission as best we can, partly because we believe the L3 scheme can be achieved with less wasteful square footage and therefore less cost than as shown, and finally because we think we as a town would be making a terrible mistake in abandoning our unique campus layout.

Most of us also believe that demolishing so much of the existing structures and spending $95 million for an “Anywhere, USA” type school is NOT environmentally responsible. Among our concerns is that doing so will lead to locating parking lots closer to the building such that they (with solar panel arrays above) will become a defining feature of a once beautiful campus. Along these lines, I personally believe the SBC has not had the best advice or has been deaf to suggestions about the many negative site implications engendered by the compact C scheme as shown.

Lastly, I personally believe the SBC is not fully attuned to how many people may balk at a $95 million price tag for the compact scheme when they figure out just how much their taxes will increase. The increase will be large no matter which way we vote, but I think folks should understand that there could be a “less large” alternative with a refined L3 scheme, and the benefit is that L3 both fulfills the educational mission and preserves the campus setting.

Please vote for the L3 scheme on June 9th!

Ken Hurd
21 Lexington Rd., Lincoln

School project updates: construction phasing, Town Meeting child care

A new overview of the six school options (click to enlarge).

Some updates on the June 9 Special Town Meeting on the school project:

A new view of the options

The image at right shows the five design concepts showing their estimated price tags and the incremental educational and physical features of each.

Construction phasing

If one of the “L” concepts is chosen, construction will take place in two 18-month phases. In the first phase, half the children will move into temporary classrooms while renovation occurs in one part of the building,. In the second phase, they will trade with the the other half of the student body while the rest of the building is renovated.
 
If Option C is chosen, only grades 4–8 will be in temporary classrooms while the Brooks portion of the school is worked on, and grades K-3 will remain in Smith. The project will take place over 24 months, with another eight to nine months for demolition of 73,000 square feet and construction of the second smaller gym in the Smith portion.

Understanding hubs

Watch this video of Hanscom Middle School faculty talking about the impact of grade-level hubs (or breakout spaces, as they’re called at Hanscom) and the difference they’ve made for teaching and learning in the building that opened in 2016.

Child care available during meeting

LEAP has generously offered to provide child care to the community on Saturday, June 9 so parents can attend the Special Town Meeting on the school building design vote that begins at 9:30 a.m. The LEAP coverage will be from 9 a.m.–3 p.m. The cost per child is $20, payable in cash on June 9. Children must be at least kindergarten age. Parents need to pack a lunch for their children; LEAP will provide snacks.

Please fill out this online registration form with your child’s name, age, and parent contact information as well as any allergies. LEAP has maximum capacity for 100 children and will fill up on a first-come, first-served basis, so please register in advance. LEAP will publish a schedule of the day’s activities ahead of time.Questions? Email leap0615@gmail.com.

Last public meetings before the vote

  • The last School Building Committee meeting before June 9 will be on Wednesday, May 30 at 7 p.m. in the Hartwell multipurpose room.
  • There will be community forums on Thursday, May 24 at 11 a.m. at The Commons and Friday, June 1 at 8:15 a.m in the Lincoln School story room.

Voter registration

The deadline to register to vote at the Special Town Meeting is Wednesday, May 30. Check your registration status here. Register online or in person in the Town Clerk’s office from 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m.

Letter from the moderator #1: checking in at the June 9 Town Meeting

To the editor,

I know that many of us have spent many hours planning for and learning about the issues we will be discussing at the Special Town Meeting on June 9. My hope is that in the next several weeks (hopefully on Monday mornings) I can explain some of the procedures we will follow at the meeting. For those not familiar with Town Meeting, I am hopeful that this information will be useful. Please share this information with others and, by all means, discuss the issues and the procedures between and among yourselves.  

Today is the day to review the checking-in process for June 9:

  • Come to the lobby of the Donaldson Auditorium in the Brooks School on Ballfield Road. Parking is always tight so walking, biking or carpooling is encouraged.  
  • Please arrive between 9:00 and 9:15 to check in so you’ll be ready when the gavel falls at 9:30. 
  • Check in with the tellers if you are a registered voter and be sure to get your hand stamped. See below if you are not a registered voter.
  • Collect various documents on the tables inside the auditorium offered by the town boards and committees.  
  • If need be, there will be overflow space in the Reed Gym.
  • Find your seat and get comfortable. We have a full day ahead of us.

You have until Wednesday, May 30 to register to vote at the June 9 meeting. If you are not a registered voter, you may attend the meeting, but you must ask for permission from the meeting to speak and may not vote. You must sit at the side of the auditorium.

If you have any questions, please send them my way and I will do my best to provide answers.

Sincerely,

Sarah Cannon Holden, Lincoln town moderator
Weston Road
sarahcannonholden@gmail.com

Letter to the editor: school option C is best for sustainability

To the editor,

Mothers Out Front is a nonprofit organization with chapters around the United States committed to preserving a livable planet for future generations. Our Lincoln chapter has closely followed the School Building Committee process over the past year. We applaud the committee on their diligence in considering the educational goals for the project as well as critical planning for sustainability in design and operation of the school. These two values were cited as the two most important values in a survey of the Lincoln community at the beginning of the planning process.

The process is reaching an important milestone with the June 9 meeting, where the committee will ask the town to endorse a general building design for further development by the architects. Mothers Out Front sees this as a watershed moment which will influence the success of our school, our educators, and our students for the next 50 years. It is also an exciting opportunity for Lincoln to express its commitment to a stable and safe climate future, a commitment which has never been more critical.

We believe the design known as “Compact C” best meets Lincoln’s dual goals of a flexible, high-quality, and innovative school campus which can also operate on a net zero basis for energy consumption. “Net zero” refers to a building (home, school, or commercial) where the total amount of energy used by the building on an annual basis is roughly equivalent to the amount of renewable energy created on the building and its site. A net zero building eliminates the need to burn fossil fuels and thus eliminates carbon emissions (or purchase of energy generated in another state at unknown expense, freeing the town from future concerns of fluctuating energy prices).

The net zero goal is achieved through design features including compact design, improved insulation, a tight building envelope, natural light, and heating and cooling with highly efficient ventilation systems. Like Mass. Audubon’s new net zero education center, net zero at the Lincoln school would be achieved through the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels on the building and adjacent to the building, to produce the energy for the school. The Lincoln campus has the space needed on roofs, parking lots, and adjacent lands (if needed) to accommodate the school’s energy needs. This plan would also be compliant with Article 40, the town’s Facilities Energy Performance Standard passed in 2011.   

The Compact C design has many advantages for the students, teachers, and campus as a whole, and is the preferred design by the majority of educators. The Compact C design eliminates wasted space in hallways and allows for more time in the classroom or time spent on educational activities versus navigating long hallways. The Compact C building footprint also allows for an additional playing field, which benefits the whole community. Compact C includes the most desirable educational spaces, including hub spaces for grades 3–8. And a compact building improves energy efficiency by reducing the ratio of building envelope to internal volume, an important feature to consider over the next 30 years of operations.

A very strong and compelling second choice is the L3 option. It includes the hub spaces and other important educational amenities, and can also include the net zero/solar panels design. The disadvantages of L3 are the loss of the additional playing field, longer transition times for students navigating the building, and a less energy-efficient design. 

While we believe the advantages of the net zero design are compelling from the point of view of reducing future catastrophic impacts from climate change, there are sound economic arguments as well. The energy markets of the future defy easy predictions in terms of cost escalation and volatility. A robust solar installation on the campus locks in stable, predictable energy costs for the next 30 years. Consider that the school spends approximately $220,000 currently on annual utility bills that cannot be spent for the core educational mission. Over the next 30 years, this expense will total at least $6.6 million. If a net zero design is built, the town will begin recovering the cost of the net zero elements on the first day the school is operational.

With the vote on June 9, we believe the town of Lincoln has an exciting opportunity to achieve 21st-century educational and sustainability goals with the design of the new school building. We feel that Compact C (our first choice) and L3 (our second choice) with net zero both advance the town’s educational goals and our town’s vision for a fossil-fuel free future. Please join us on June 9 to vote for a state-of-the-art teaching and learning environment for the next generation of Lincoln students. 

Sincerely,

Mothers Out Front Lincoln — Lincoln (Trish O’Hagan, Emily Haslett, Staci Montori, Robyn Bostrom, and Sheila Dennis

Drumlin preschool and director Canelli honored

Left to right: Mass Audubon Director of Education Kris Scopinich, Drumlin Farm Community Preschool Lead Teacher Rina Zampieron, Preschool Director and awardee Jill Canelli; Drumlin Farm Wildlife Sanctuary Director Renata Pomponi; and State Energy and Environmental Affairs Sec. Matthew A. Beaton. (Mass Audubon/Kelly Moffett photo)

Drumlin Farm Wildlife Sanctuary’s nature preschool and its director, Jill Canelli, have been honored with a Secretary’s Award for Excellence, which recognizes schools and teachers from throughout Massachusetts for their outstanding efforts to improve energy and environmental education.

The awards were presented by the office of State Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Matthew A. Beaton in the rotunda of the Massachusetts State House on May 14.

Nature-based education is a fundamental element of Mass Audubon’s mission, and the Drumlin Farm Community Preschool is only one of the conservation organization’s state-licensed preschools, located at four of its wildlife sanctuaries. Another eight sanctuaries across the Commonwealth offer weekly nature preschool programs.

Canelli, an environmental educator for more than two decades, served as the founding director of the Drumlin Farm Community Preschool in 2007 before relocating with her family to Atlanta and continuing her work in environmental education. In 2014, she returned to Drumlin Farm and the preschool, and was especially happy to be part of the celebration surrounding its 10th anniversary in the spring of 2017.

Mass Audubon President Gary Clayton said the preschool and its director are very deserving award recipients. “We are honored to see this recognition of Jill Canelli’s exemplary work in raising the next generation of nature heroes at the Drumlin Farm Community Preschool, which reinforces Mass Audubon’s stature as a premier model for nature preschools statewide and beyond,” he said.

This is the third straight year that Mass Audubon, the state’s largest nature conservation nonprofit, has been honored by the Secretary’s Award for Excellence program. Last year, the organization was cited for its collaboration with the Lowell Parks and Conservation Trust in that city. In 2016, it was selected for the All Persons Trails Guidelines Project which, modeled on Mass Audubon’s own accessibility initiatives, provides guidance and support materials for like-minded organizations nationwide.

Committees offer guidelines in advance of June 9 school vote

The Finance and Capital Planning Committees made some recommendations about a school project at the last public forum before the June 9 Special Town Meeting vote, but neither one endorsed a specific design option.

The FinCom recommended that the town stay within its state-mandated 5% debt cap, which would limit new borrowing to about $97 million. This eliminates the most expensive school concept—Option FPC at $109 million.

More information:

[tcpaccordion id=”17948″]

At the May 15 forum, chair Jim Hutchinson repeated the other guidelines that members agreed on at their May 3 meeting. Members recommend that the town not wait until construction costs are more favorable, and judged that the estimates for square footage per student and construction cost per square foot re in line with those from other Massachusetts Schools.

Hutchinson also presented updated borrowing impact information and comparisons to neighboring towns (Bedford, Carlisle, Concord, Lexington, Sudbury, Wayland, and Weston), with ranges depending on which school option is chosen and whether the bond interest rate is 4% or 5%. Those figures include:

  • Tax increase — On a home valued at $997,500, taxes would go up by $1,329–$2,983 in the first year.
  • Average tax bill — At $15,185, Lincoln now has the second-highest average single-family fax bill after Weston at $19,380, and it would remain that position. The average bill would climb to $16,300–$18,014.
  • Tax rate — Lincoln currently has the second-lowest tax rate; it would go up to the fourth- or fifth-lowest.
Capital Planning Committee weighs in

Capital Planning Committee Audrey Kalmus presented her group’s recommendations:

  1. The town should consider designs that are easily scalable in case school enrollment rises faster than projected.
  2. To meet its “current basic needs,” the school should have a full kitchen as almost all other schools now do (this would eliminate the $49 million repair-only Option R).
  3. The building should be capable of achieving net-zero energy use (this eliminated Options R and L1).
  4. To “maximize the school’s value for teaching and learning,” it should include the educational enhancements as recommended by the School Committee and administration, such as “hubs” for each grade if possible.

The only options that meet all four of the CapComm criteria are L3 and C.

A group of Lincoln architects presented a proposal to the School Building Committee meeting on May 2 for a revised Option L2 that they said would meet most of the educational objectives of Option L3 (including hubs for grades 3–8) but at a lower cost. “L2 is really a substandard scheme, not well developed like the other schemes,” Ken Hurd, one of the architects, said at the forum.

“The SBC appreciates the efforts of our town design professionals,” SBC Vice Chair Kim Bodnar said this week. “In addition to their memos that have stimulated thinking in the SBC and within the design teams at SMMA and EwingCole, Ken Bassett, Peter Sugar and Doug Adams volunteered to be on our SBC Design Team Subcommittee last summer.  Their engagement has been extensive and appreciated.”

At the SBC’s request, SMMA Architects also presented on May 2 a compact option costing $85 million (about halfway between L2 and L3 in price). However, with that constraint, the plan would not include the auditorium, which best meets the legal requirement for a Town Meeting assembly site within the town’s borders.

The May 13 blog post by the SBC outlines the committee’s reaction to the idea, as well as some of the differences between options L2, L3, and C. Superintendent of Schools Becky McFall noted that the June 9 vote will establish only the building’s footprint and cost limit, so through SMMA’s work in the summer and fall on the chosen concept, “we can design more efficient spaces in the building” and rearrange things internally to some extent.

Town Meeting format

“We’re expecting near-record turnout” on June 9, so registered voters can check in starting at 8:15 a.m. and go into either the auditorium or the Reed Gym. More than 700 people packed into the auditorium and lecture hall for the 2012 school project, and a few had to be turned away at the door due to fire safety concerns. (The vote was 370-321 in favor of the project, or 54%–45%, which did not meet the required two-thirds majority).

The first vote via voting machine will ask which of the six school concepts they prefer, and a second standing vote will ask then to express a preference for one of the two top finishers in vote #1. The winning concept will then go into the schematic design phase in preparation for a bonding vote at a Special Town Meeting on December 1 (which requires a two-thirds majority) and a town election on December 3, which requires a simple majority.

After Selectman Jennifer Glass outlined the procedure for June 9, several resident had questions and suggestions. One wondered what would happen if the town approved a plan that did not meet the town’s 2030 bylaw on energy efficiency; another asked why residents would be voting on both building shape and price rather than just cost.

“We often hear ‘How can you design something without a budget?’ but it’s hard to name an amount of money if you don’t know what you get for it,” School Committee Chair Tim Christenfeld said.

Between the June 9 vote and the Special Town Meeting in December, there will be more forums and surveys as the SBC continues to meet and the architects present details on the building’s design and cost. “The conversation is going to continue,” he added.