schools

By 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.”