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:

• • Drawings of the six school options along with costs and tax impacts for each
  • A one-page chart comparing the features and costs of the options
  • The Finance Committee’s updated tax impact projections and comparisons to other area towns

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.