schools

Editor’s note: Town Meeting Warrant Articles 30 and 31 are explained in this letter to the editor by School Committee chair Jennifer Glass.

To the editor:

I am concerned that many residents of Lincoln are unaware that the vote to determine how Lincoln will address the needs of its school building will take place on March 28. If those of us who believe it important to do more for our school building than just fix the most urgently needed repairs don’t show up at Town Meeting and vote “yes” on Articles 30 and 31, those improvements won’t happen.

[Read more…] about Letter to the editor: vote for state-assisted school building project

Editor’s note: This letter has been amended after publication to reflect a correction in the writer’s name. Town Meeting Warrant Articles 30 and 31 are explained in this earlier letter to the editor by School Committee chair Jennifer Glass. 

To the editor:

At this Town Meeting, Lincoln’s citizens are challenged to join in constructing a renovated school building so it may engage new educational initiatives. Broad support will strengthen us in many ways, so for us all, an Alpine winter may be displaced by spring action.

I write to engage your collective support so that this spring we will be well served to support the school committee motions to (1) Spend more than $30 million on a school renovation (not repair), and to also (2) to seek to be accepted again by the MSBA [Massachusetts School Building Authority] to seek state funding support for Lincoln’s school renovation.

[Read more…] about Letter to the editor: vote “yes” on Articles 30 and 31

To the editor:

I write this commentary as a former chair and member of the School Building Advisory Committee (SBAC), now disbanded. At the outset, I think it is important to emphasize what the Town Meeting warrant articles (number 30, 32 and 32) relating to the Lincoln School are not about. They are not about picking a particular design option or sum to spend on a school building project. If Town Meeting desires to move forward with a school building project, those decisions will be made at future Town Meetings or Special Town Meetings.

The warrant articles relating to the schools before Town Meeting on March 28 are limited to: (1) whether the town desires to apply for MSBA state funding for a future school building project (warrant article 31), which could cover approximately 30-40 percent of any such project; and (2) whether the town will authorize the funding necessary to undertake the feasibility study necessary for any MSBA project (warrant article 30). If the town does not want to pursue the type of major renovation project which qualifies for MSBA funding, it has the option of voting for a repair-only project and related feasibility study (warrant article 32).

I support Town Meeting passing warrant articles 30 and 31 (and thereby rejecting warrant article 32). I have come to this conclusion based on:

• the year and a half I served on SBAC and the 50+ SBAC  public meetings I attended over this time
• listening closely to both the wisdom of the 11 other members of SBAC (a diverse group that did not always agree) and the many thoughtful  members of the public who attended the SBAC public forums
• observing the dynamic of  SBAC members and a significant number of those members of our community who attended the public forums in expressing their belief that the best option for the school and the town is a major renovation project that qualifies for state funding and preserves the L-shape configuration of the school, the center field, and the trees and bucolic character of our unique school campus—a campus which resonates with the special character of this special town.

I recognize that a major renovation project, for which Lincoln’s contribution is expected to be at least $30 million, will and should raise questions about the fiscal responsibility of such a project. Some might question whether the School Committee, by being candid about the minimum cost but unable at this time to identify a maximum cost, is seeking a blank check. I am convinced it is not.

At this time, the School Committee cannot responsibly place before Town Meeting a maximum number because no schematic drawings have been done of the conceptual options developed by Dore & Whittier during the SBAC process. (These will be developed during the feasibility study process.) Moreover, since the School Committee will have to come back to future Town Meetings for the approval of a particular design option and its bonding, it knows that it will have to present an option that is fiscally responsible. Finally, since the School Committee will be seeking community input into every phase of the MSBA/feasibility study process, residents will have ample opportunity to make sure the option which ultimately emerges from that process is fiscally responsible and provides value for the money spent.

I do not see a “repair-only” option as responsible from either an educational or fiscal perspective because, in my view, such an approach could be more costly in the long run and, as the November 2013 SBAC report states, leave unresolved “the mid/long term facility needs, as well as educational objectives and priorities of the schools.” In my opinion, this seems neither responsible nor wise. The January 2015 SBAC report did not take a position on this option or any option because SBAC appropriately believed the town should decide the direction it wants to take.

In sum, I think the Town Meeting should be focused like a laser on what it can do to have the town accepted into the MSBA’s 2016 process, since so much more can be done for the school with approximately 30-40 percent in additional funding. In my view, this means passing warrant articles 30 and 31. It also means passing them by large majorities, if that is possible. After the defeat of the old “preferred option” in November 2012, the MSBA suggested to the town that it should seek to develop a consensus on the direction it wants to take for its school. In my opinion, large majority votes in favor of warrant articles 30 and 31 are necessary to send the MSBA the message that after a “ton” of work over the last year and a half through the SBAC process a consensus has emerged in favor of an L-shaped configuration that preserves the special character of this special town.

Although such a vote will not guarantee that Lincoln will be invited into the MSBA’s 2016 process, the town runs a significant risk that it will not be invited into this process if it does not show substantial support for warrant articles 30 and 31. In my view, this is a risk the town should not take.

Sincerely,

Steven P. Perlmutter
Todd Pond Road

---

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to news@lincolnsquirrel.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, 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.