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.

To the editor:

Lincoln has reached a critical juncture. Our school is in need of a serious upgrade, having had no real work done on the buildings since 1994. Add to this the consideration that education has also developed since that time. We must think seriously about designing educational spaces that embody teaching strategies that respond to 21st-century needs.

We have been making a concentrated effort to respond to the challenges. After the 2012 project did not succeed, the town’s leadership promised that when the town was ready to choose the scope and budget of a new school project, the choice would rest with the citizens of Lincoln. The current School Building Committee (SBC) worked to bring 5 choices to the town, and on June 9, we came together as a community and gave overwhelming support to the “L3” design which comprehensively renovates the existing school, provides significant upgrades to the “bones of the school,” transforms many of the educational spaces needed to have our children thrive, and will be one of the first “net zero” school renovations in Massachusetts.

The SBC has worked diligently since May 2017 on the school project. It has met 44 times and invested countless hours on this important community project. We are proud of the work of our design team and owners’ project manager, and we are grateful for the dedication of the many liaisons from other committees and to the members of the public who have consistently engaged in the process. The proposed solution embodies the latest thinking by educators, an approach which has demonstrated its results at the now completed Hanscom Middle School. This design incorporates a series of hubs or neighborhoods at each grade level to encourage flexibility for our teachers, creating a collaborative and enthusiastic learning environment for our children.

Lincoln residents, not the SBC or town leadership, chose the $93.9 million budget for the project at the June 9, 2018 Special Town Meeting. This budget is in line with recent school construction/renovation costs for projects in the greater Boston area, when adjustments are made for the size and time of the various school projects. The town has reduced the amount of necessary bonding for the project from $93.9 million to $88.5 million through the use of $4.4 million from the stabilization fund and $1 million from free cash. The SBC has also collaborated with the Assessors, the Council on Aging, the Finance Committee, and the Board of Selectmen to publicize all the available tax deferral and mitigation programs, and to expand those, such as the Senior Tax Work-off Program, over which the town has direct control.

In each generation, Lincoln has invested in its schools—and this is the time to do so again. Our community has an opportunity to move forward with a project that balances innovative educational spaces, sustainability, and respect for our history and our strong civic tradition. We do not take the financial impact on our community lightly, and we know that it is not an easy decision for our fellow citizens. We do believe this project provides significant value for the investment, and we hope that we will come together on this final step and vote to move the town forward. Please join us in voting “yes” both at the Special Town Meeting on December 1 and at the ballot on December 3. Thank you.

Sincerely,

The Lincoln 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:

As you think about the upcoming votes on the school, here are a few thoughts from someone has been involved in the process for the last six years, first as a School Building Advisory Committee member and now as a School Building Committee (SBC) member. Not surprisingly, I believe the project is important for our school and our town. I would like to share with you some of the reasons behind my thinking.

The town, not the SBC or town leadership, chose this project

It is important to remember that it was the town’s residents, not the SBC or town leadership, who chose the option to be voted on December 1 and December 3. This was done at the June 9, 2018 Special Town Meeting (STM), which was attended by almost 650 people. At that time, the SBC presented five options. The options ranged in cost from $49 million to $98 million. The STM overwhelming chose the option that is the subject of the December bonding votes. This option, whose budget is $93.9 million, received 74 percent of the vote. The more expensive option received 17 percent of the vote. The least expensive option, the “repair only” option, received 4.3 percent of the vote in the first round and was eliminated from contention at that time.

I recognize and respect that some would prefer the cost to be less. I also acknowledge that many people in town do not attend town meetings, although I believe a turnout of about 650 people is pretty high for one in Lincoln. Town Meeting has been an integral part of how our town democracy has worked for a long time. It is also a fair and open process, as was the one followed by the SBC before the June 9 vote. In my opinion, we need to be cautious about attempting to re-litigate matters that were decided at a town meeting if we want the town to move forward and avoid a debilitating gridlock.

A “no” vote could depress property values

Understandably, taxes are what people focus on. However, another relevant consideration is property values. In my opinion, there is a risk that, if Lincoln votes down a school building project for a second time in the last six years, property values in town may decline because the town may get the reputation that it does not support its schools. This could drive young families to other towns—those that have a reputation for supporting their schools. If this occurs, there is a risk, particularly for those who do not plan to remain in town long-term, that the financial “hit” they will sustain, on account of a decrease in their property values, could exceed (in some cases substantially) the amount of additional taxes they will have to pay over the period of time they remain in town on account of the school building project. Even a small decrease of only 3 percent in one’s property value could have a significant negative impact on the homeowner.

The tax increase

The June 9 vote indicated that the voters believed it would be irresponsible and shortsighted to simply bring the building up to code for $49 million but provide no educational enhancements to it.  Since we recognize that the school needs more than $49 million worth of work, the question becomes: what are we getting for the incremental $44.9 million ($49 million + $44.9 million = $93.9 million) in order to achieve educational enhancements? This question, in turn, leads to the critical question for the taxpayers: how much more in taxes will we be required to pay on account of this $44.9 million? Excluding the $5.4 million of “cash in hand,” an $88.5 million bond that carries an interest rate of either 4 percent or 5 percent will add $2,415 or $2,717 to the median taxpayer’s annual tax bill. However, the incremental amount of $44.9 million for the educational enhancements only adds about $1,225 or $1,435. The ultimate question for many taxpayers becomes whether this incremental amount is a fair amount to pay in order to realize the educational enhancements that the school project offers.

Tax assistance programs

I realize that some people in town may have trouble paying either the full or incremental amount of the tax increase. Those in this position should investigate the town’s programs for helping people with their property taxes. Depending on the program and whether a person qualifies for it, taxes can be deferred or the benefits can amount to as much as $1,000, $1,500, or $2000, annually. Whether the median tax increase is $2,415 or $2,717 for the full project or $1,225 or $1,435 for the incremental portion of the project, this type of assistance could substantially soften the tax impact of the project. See pages 9-12 of the FAQ document.

The educational enhancements to the school

The educators will explain the educational enhancements the project brings to the school and the students. I will only make a few observations. In my view, the space in which teachers and students teach and learn can have an impact on the breath and depth of educational programming. Instead of continuing with the single classroom model (i.e., each teacher has her/his own box to teach from), the renovated school will combine “distinct classrooms and multi-use spaces that can adapt to changing educational needs over time.” The “neighborhood” model in grades 3-8 features classrooms clustered around a shared common space (“hub”) that supports a curriculum based on the ability to flexibly group students and teachers together and to foster age-appropriate independence.

The new center of the school will include a “learning commons” that can accommodate large-scale programming and a “dining commons” that can be used as flexible educational space during non-dining hours. The addition of the flexible spaces throughout the building provides spaces that can handle different-sized groups for different educational purposes. In my opinion, this flexibility model, which combines traditional separate classrooms with different-sized flexible spaces, is not an educational fad. It is also not a return to the discredited “open classroom” model. It represents common sense because education is not a one-size-fits-all experience for students or teachers.

The cost of the project is in line with comparable school projects

The cost of the school project is not excessive when it is compared with the cost of other school projects in our area. The SBC, working with its owner’s project manager, Daedalus Projects, whose business is the school public construction market in Massachusetts, investigated this issue and concluded that the cost of the Lincoln project is not out of line, when adjustments are made for when the projects were undertaken and the size of the other projects. See the SBC post titled “Construction Costs and Other Matters” and SBC member Craig Nicholson’s November 20, 2018 post on LincolnTalk. The FinCom also investigated this issue and reached the same conclusion (see points 3 and 4 in its May 22, 2018 recommendations).

The costs of public and home construction projects are not comparable

Based on what the SBC has learned from Daedalus and an SBC member who works in the construction industry, this type of comparison is not valid. A public construction project in Massachusetts is governed by a panoply of statutes and regulations that do not apply to home construction, such as earthquake resistance and additional fire resistance. Wage rates for workers on such projects are determined by the Commonwealth, which ensures a middle-class income level for the skilled tradesmen who will build the school. The market for the public construction of a school is separate and distinct from that for home construction. See page 4 of “Construction Costs and Other Matters.”

I hope this letter has helped you prepare for the very important votes you will cast on December 1 and December 3. In my opinion, they will have a significant impact on the future of the school and our town. For the above reasons, and many more, I think that future is best secured by a “yes” vote.

Sincerely,

Steven P. Perlmutter
90 Todd Pond 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.