To the editor:

As engaged community members, we have attended and participated in many of the School Building Committee meetings, town surveys, and open workshops held over the past two years in Lincoln. We invested our time in this process because we understood that a new school is likely the most significant capital project that Lincoln will consider for the next several decades; because we feel the best education for our children is a priority that binds us together as a community; and because we recognized both the potential opportunity and the long-term benefit to the town of a design that would be appropriate, innovative, and sustainable.

We appreciated having a “seat at the table” and that citizen concerns, questions, and differing opinions that came up in meetings over the past two years were acknowledged thoughtfully and diligently considered by the SBC throughout the process. It was a thorough, transparent, and inclusive process. Overall, we feel this was time well spent and has resulted in a design worthy of our children, our teachers, and of Lincoln.

Given the importance of this school to our community and the positive message it will send to our students and teachers, we will be voting YES for the new school building on December 1 and 3. We believe the school design reflects the core values as articulated by the town at the beginning of the process and will provide a superior learning environment.

We are particularly excited that the new school will incorporate a net zero energy design. As we learned and hope you consider, the benefits of the net zero school building to everyone in Lincoln are multiple. The net zero design requires less energy, lowers operating costs, and provides increase building resiliency in a changing climate. Powered by renewable solar energy, the new school will have a reduced carbon footprint, helping Lincoln meet our 2030 energy bylaw. Finally, the overall design will positively impact student performance, enhance learning opportunities, and demonstrate Lincoln’s commitment to educational innovation to our teachers and staff.

We encourage you to consider all these benefits and hope you will join us in voting to support the School Building Committee’s design.

Sincerely,

Sheila Dennis and Tom Henry
28 Weston Rd., Lincoln

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.

To the editor:

We should all be paying careful attention when we’re being asked to vote for a school that will increase our property tax bills by nearly 20 percent. But paying careful attention means thinking through all the financial consequences, not just the most immediate impacts on our wallets.

I’m certainly concerned about my taxes going up. But I’m also concerned about the longer-term impact that turning down a school project for a second time in six years might have on housing prices in Lincoln. While there’s always room for more thorough financial analysis, some simple observations and arithmetic suggest the financial gains resulting from lower property taxes might quickly be negated by potentially much larger reductions in the value of our homes. Here’s why I worry that a focus only on property taxes could lead us to a bad financial decision:

• Lincoln’s high home prices mean that small percentage declines in home values compared to what they would otherwise have been—what I’ll refer to as the penalty for not investing in quality schools—could be fairly consequential. For Lincoln’s median home valued at around $1 million, a 2 percent penalty amounts to $20,000, a 5 percent penalty is $50,000 and a 10 percent penalty results in a $100,000 loss of value.
• It’s the implications of the investment in educational enhancements beyond the “repair only” scenario (i.e., beyond the $49 million option) that we need to focus on when considering the additional property tax costs of the decision about the new school. These enhancements represent only about 50 percent of the increase in the tax bill. Yet, they are what are most likely to be recognized by future home buyers as an indication that Lincoln is serious about investing in its schools—and thus generate the real benefit to property values. For the currently proposed $93.9 million project, the FinCom estimates the median tax bill in the more expensive bonding cost scenario would rise by a little over $2,700 per year; but the educational enhancement component of the cost accounts for only about $1,400 of this amount.
• In a highly simplified scenario (that is, with no time value of money, no inflation, and no other personal tax considerations), a family living in the median-value home for 10 years would save roughly $14,000 in taxes if Lincoln chose not to fund any educational enhancements (i.e., repair only), and a little over $42,000 in the same scenario if they stayed in their home for 30 years—this is just a straight adding-up of the $1,400 in annual taxes attributed to the educational enhancements.
• How do the tax savings in this scenario compare with the losses that might occur if the real estate market imposed a penalty of as little as 5 percent on home values for Lincoln’s perceived failure to support its schools? In other words, are you likely to be economically better off if you vote for the more expensive school or not? For the median million-dollar Lincoln home, a penalty of as little as 5 percent (roughly $50,000) would more than offset the expenditures on increased property taxes, even for homeowners who stay in their homes for as long as 30 years. So if you believe a penalty in the 5 percent range is plausible, the answer is yes—homeowners would be economically better off in the long run voting for the more expensive school. If the penalty for not investing in the schools were higher (say, 10 percent) homeowners would be much better off. A homeowner selling his or her house 10 years from now would have paid a little over $14,000 in cumulative taxes for the educational enhancements but would have realized $100,000 less than would otherwise have been the case.
• The numbers presented above are by design a simplification. They’re actually quite conservative in not taking into account the time value of money when looking at the value of the future tax savings, particularly if the penalty to home values is relatively immediate and long-lasting. My takeaway is that a vote against the current school project could well end up damaging the family finances more in the longer run than it helps. Given Lincoln’s high home values, even relatively small penalties—for example, less than 5 percent—imposed by the real estate market in response to a perception that we have not invested adequately in our schools would quickly negate the value of lower property taxes that Lincoln’s homeowners would enjoy if pursuit of a less expensive option, like “repair only,” leads to the defeat of the school project bonding votes in early December.

How likely is the real estate market to impose a significant “school” penalty if Lincoln doesn’t approve the proposed school building project? Without a doubt we could argue about this for the next 30 years. But looking at real estate appreciation in neighboring towns may provide some perspective. In Lexington, widely recognized for the quality of its educational system, the median home price rose by more than 50 percent between 2008 and 2017, compared with a rise over the same period of less than 10 percent in Lincoln. While this 40 percentage point difference certainly should not be attributed solely to schools, it’s also likely that perceptions about the quality of education in Lexington have had something to do with it. Avoiding a housing price penalty in the range of something like 3–5 percent certainly seems plausible and maybe even likely, in light of the large relative changes in home sale prices we’ve seen between Lexington and Lincoln over the past decade.

Given the risks of even larger potential penalties, I’m more worried about the property value impact of turning down the school than I am about the extra taxes I’ll have to pay. And for those who may need to rely on the town’s tax relief programs or a home equity line of credit to help with their property taxes, I think the same argument holds true—when you finally do sell your home, a vote for the school project reduces the risk that you’ll suffer a significant reduction in its value because young families are less interested in moving to Lincoln.

And last but certainly not least, all this ignores the perhaps more important, and less self-interested, reasons to vote for the school project. Many residents have spoken eloquently to these already.

Sincerely,

Tom Walker
12 Trapelo Road

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.

To the editor:

Our small town has long worked to find agreement on how to best support and configure our K-8 school. Last spring, we selected the L3 option, which sustained the central campus and set a budget of $93.9 million. Since then, wonderful, balanced work has brought to reality a model school and a new community campus about two fields in a central common for Lincoln. Now we can all see its promise. Like all good design, here are the outline of attributes which invite description.

First, the L-shaped scheme of the school unifies the school facility, and the campus plan will be fulfilled when the community center is completed along with new pedestrian links to the east connected to the Reed Gym. At last, a new unity is promised.
Importantly, what was a linkage between two separate buildings Smith and Brooks is now connected—unified, not just linked.

A new central entry allows for security control and a principal portal reached across an east courtyard. Anchoring these necessities just inside the entry is a new communal learning space, library learning center, and school administration. One is drawn together. One is centered, secured, and welcomed. All in a facility which also allows for varying configurations of team and individual learning.

This attribute of individual and group learning characterizes a new method of teaching. The new plan’s order is interwoven into the frame of the renovated building as third- through eighth-grade classrooms have flexible hub spaces which allow for large group spaces, or work spaces for smaller-scale learning groups to pursue learning independently or with supervision. This is all possible due to new fire separation technology, which allows traditional hallways to be reconnected with smoke-activated door security into useful learning hubs as gateways to classrooms. The end of a hallway may now be encircled by classrooms and that circulation space can be enclosed as part of the hub.

So now we have a design which promises not just a new facility, but one specifically formed to support new educational learning configurations, allowing flexible options for instruction while sustaining and renovating the distinctive spaces of the historic Smith and Brooks schools.

Note that the Donaldson auditorium serving our critical town governance and the beautiful multifunction Smith gym enlarge our school over a conventional K-8 facility. We benefit. Here again there is distinction. The design team and the SBC have worked diligently to create a new fabric for our school. It is a model for building renovation, designing a perimeter envelope which will be the first Massachusetts school where the renovation will achieve net-zero energy conservation, with the best of modern glazing, sun shading, interior illumination, sound and air quality control, and acoustic dampening. Now we benefit from a better building.

As we face a world vitalized by the challenge of lifelong learning, all generations of our small community have a great potential at hand, which is to graciously support the new school’s design’s distinctive design attributes. This is a new space and place that supports ideals we’re investing in for the future.

Sincerely,

F. Douglas Adams, AIA
Historic Commission liaison to the School Building 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.

To the editor:

I have been delighted over the last couple of years as Lincoln has reached a tipping point on clean energy. We are working toward the elimination of CO2 emissions for our town buildings. We are working on Community Choice Aggregation to increase the renewably generated supply of our electricity throughout the town. There are a rapidly growing number of electric vehicles (EVs) in town and many of us have already made the switch to renewably generated electricity directly and/or indirectly.

The Lincoln School building project represents more than 50 percent of our energy consumption in our town buildings. It is a critical piece of the puzzle to move Lincoln forward on our clean energy journey. We also need models like Lincoln at a town, school, and church level to act as building blocks that can be replicated in nearby towns and across Massachusetts.

The key aspects of our net-zero school are establishing a high-efficiency building envelope, converting all of our systems to electricity, and providing all of the energy (electricity) required to operate our school from on-site solar-generated electricity. In addition, there are embodied energy savings due to the fact that we are saving portions of the existing school infrastructure. That is to say, the portions of the building that will not be newly constructed will not require CO2 emissions to produce those materials, transport them, and build with them.

The educational aspects of a net-zero school include the engagement of students, faculty, and others in the community around electricity use and the study of the operational data collected. This results in a more sustainable environment as we understand how our use of the school impacts electricity demand, which enables us to modify our behavior and electricity consumption.

Financially, a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for solar arrays on the school rooftops and adjacent carports is an ideal way for the town to eliminate upfront capital costs, reduce current operating costs, and eliminate the unpredictability of fossil fuel prices in the future.

Please vote YES on December 1 and 3 at Town Meeting and in the ballot booth.

Sincerely,

Peter Watkinson
9 Wheeler Rd. #81, Lincoln

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.

To the editor:

As members of Mothers Out Front, an environmental group dedicated to a swift and just transition away from fossil fuels, we are urging everyone to support the school building project.

We have an opportunity to build a school that is environmentally important—a chance to build a net-zero school. We must think outside of Lincoln as we make this decision. What is our responsibility to this earth? In the past two years, we have seen the California wildfires destroy unprecedented amounts of land and untold lives. In fact, the California wildfire season is now year-round. And closer to home, Boston has had two “100-year storms” that flooded the Long Wharf area in 2018.

This is the climate reality we are all living with in 2018. Scientists have predicted that these climate related events will intensify in both frequency and force. And Lincoln will not be immune. These climate related events are vastly costly. Hurricane Harvey was estimated to cost $125 billion.

We must do all we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that means moving away from the use of fossil fuels. Our new school will be be heated with electricity made primarily onsite from solar panels. Its goal will be to produce as much energy as it uses.

The design team has also incorporated plenty of natural light and views to the outdoors to minimize the need for overhead lighting. The heating system will be air- or ground-source heat pumps, providing a consistent and comfortable environment for our students and staff. And over the life of the building, we will save considerably on energy costs, while honoring our 2008 town bylaw to reduce fossil fuel energy consumption by 80 percent on any town-owned buildings undergoing renovation.

Sincerely,

Mothers Out Front Coordinating Team: Emily Haslett, Sheila Dennis, Staci Montori, Patricia O’Hagan

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.

To the editor:

Lincoln is fortunate to have so many people committed to our town value of providing excellence in education for our students.

As a member of the Lincoln School Committee, I take our mission seriously, which generally states: “The Lincoln School Committee seeks to unite our communities in challenging and equipping our students to acquire essential skills and knowledge … and believes that if we commit to a shared vision for the district and its educational goals, actively listen to and engage with the district and its constituents, and act as stewards of the town’s values and interests, the district’s educational obligations and aspirations, and town resources … then we will strengthen the engagement, achievement, and development of all students as we help fulfill the district’s educational vision and expectations.”

I write this not speaking on behalf of the School Committee or in any formal capacity, but simply as a fellow citizen. With the vote for the school building project in front of us, we are all responsible for actively listening, working together, acting as stewards for the town’s wider interests, and leading with our commitment to providing excellence in education.

The process that has brought us to this moment has been long, comprehensive, often arduous, and sometimes frustrating, as there are many interests to balance. As such, I am proud and grateful for the process that the School Building Committee (SBC) has followed to get us here. I recognize it as abundantly collaborative and transparent while balancing as best as possible the needs of all stakeholders. They have brought us a plan that meets an essential program for enhanced educational outcomes while ensuring the responsible use the town’s monies as thoughtfully as possible—considering inputs from FinCom, CapCom, the Board of Selects, the Lincoln school district administration, and many other town boards and committees.

I wholeheartedly support the plan in front of us.

The SBC started by understanding the needs of the educational program as well as the wider town, taking into consideration the many analyses and plans that preceded this particular leg of the journey. It collaborated with the committee looking at the community center to better understand the campus master plan. It received active and ongoing guidance from local experts in architecture, education, site design, construction, historical context, and sustainability. It presented the town initially with more than two dozen options that were narrowed to six, then five, then three and then finally the plan in front of us.

At all points, the Lincoln community was engaged and involved. While the project has a considerable cost, I do not consider this plan to be extravagant. It is not the most comprehensive or expensive option and has repeatedly pared down the program scope without sacrificing the core educational program.

I further believe that there is no other viable option that meets these goals. As was widely agreed in prior town meetings, I do not believe we can support a repair alternative that has repeatedly been assessed and determined to be a poor use of town funds. Nor should we support a wait-and-see approach that ignores our clearly defined facility needs in the hopes that the fundamentals of our economy will somehow change in our favor, or that the MSBA will radically change their priorities and somehow put us at the top of their compressed list.

I believe that any delay to this decision will force us into a costly and yet low-value repair path—one that would see taxes rise without the corresponding educational benefits. I instead choose to look forward to providing our children with a modern educational environment while honoring the essence of our past.

In conclusion, I’d like to thank all of the people in our town who have educated us, challenged us, focused us, pushed us, and ultimately contributed to this outcome. We have a sound and exciting plan in front of us that is a reflection of our values and shared goals. I thank them for their participation. I thank them for their support for this critical program. On December 1, December 3 and beyond, I ask that you do the same.

Sincerely,

Peter Borden
36 Longmeadow Road

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.