The Lincoln Squirrel – News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

Letter to the editor: Stand up for Option C if education is your top priority

To the editor:

I appreciate the many folks who have argued so well for choosing either options L3 or C on Saturday. I wholeheartedly agree. Although our kids are past the Lincoln School stage, we want to support the best educational outcomes for those who follow. A building with hubs and other flexible-use spaces (C and L3) best supports differentiated learning, cross-grade activities such as “reading buddies” and other educational best practices.

I believe our teachers will actually take advantage of such spaces: Hanscom experience demonstrates it can be done, and superintendent McFall supports the same for the Ballfield Road campus, so I trust additional teacher training will be provided as necessary. The building alone doesn’t guarantee best practices, but it enables them.

Net zero energy usage (L3 or C) is also important. Human-caused climate change is the biggest environmental, moral, and human rights issue of our time, and time is of the essence in trying to avoid its worst possible effects. So now is not the time to backtrack on the commitment the town made its energy bylaw.

How to choose what’s better between L3 and C3? Though many considerations have been mentioned, I would argue that the two main and potentially competing considerations are aesthetics versus education.

As to aesthetics, some apparently like the look of the familiar, sprawling “L” much more than that of a more compact, two-story building (C). They of course are entitled to their opinion. However, as a longtime user of the Ballfield Road campus who cares about visual design, I nevertheless feel no nostalgic attachment to the old buildings, and no aesthetic preference for their L-shaped arrangement. I think a new compact building, with more green space around it, could look great. Let’s recognize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

In terms of educational function, I think C beats L3. The more compact design allows shorter travel times, which makes certain kinds of beneficial interactions more feasible and more likely to happen. These include for example differentiated learning sessions in a hub mixing kids from different grades; “reading buddies” and similar mixed-grade activities; and collaboration by teachers across grade levels to continuously facilitate the above.

So I suggest you ask yourself what’s more important to you—maximizing educational outcomes or preserving the “L” look? For me, it’s educational outcomes.

The last major consideration—and it’s a crucial —is what can the town get passed when the final vote happens this fall? If I thought C would fail and L3 would pass, of course I’d support L3 for that reason. But we don’t actually know that is the case.

So let’s use the Town Meeting to get a better gauge on that. When we take the first vote Saturday morning, if you like C best, don’t stand up for L3 just because you think it might have a better chance of passing. Instead, stand up for C, and let’s find out how many people feel the same. I expect there would be time to coalesce around L3 in a later vote on Saturday, if that looks to be necessary.

Thanks very much to the volunteers and professionals who have put so much time into helping tee up these options for decision.

Sincerely,

Paul Shorb
99 South Great 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

Letter to the editor: option L3 is the best choice

To the editor:

What follows is my personal perspective.

Lincoln has always been committed to a progressive education, and generations have spent untold hours and dollars to provide that education in this town. I want us to choose a school that the current parents of this town embrace for their children, so I canvassed many of them to understand their perspective. Two key elements are the school’s disrepair and the progressive educational infrastructure that hubs provide to kids. These hubs provide an innovative, collaborative, configurable environment for learning.

Many of today’s parents have kids who started school around the time Town Meeting voted down a new school in 2012. Those same parents will not see their kids in this new/renovated school, even if we vote for and bond a school option at the end of this year. I am impressed by the parents’ remarkable commitment and determination with no or limited benefit coming to their children from this school project. They are primarily thinking about the next wave of children to pass through the school.

I thought about option C, but it felt too similar to the design that Town Meeting did not support in 2012.

Through a number of friends with an eye to the architectural beauty and preservation of our structures, I also was influenced by the unique way our school campus nestles into the fields and forest surrounding the buildings. We barely notice that we are entering school grounds in a car or on foot from the trail system as the trees tower over the structure. Educators and kids look out from numerous vantage points at the natural setting which provides natural light.

So I thought about the L options that would maintain and upgrade this vision for our school.

I don’t know why it took so long to see the light, but earlier in May, the picture started to unfold. I listened as many in the town shared what they were looking for in their visions. The hubs and L design were the clear requirements for consensus between these two groups. L3 is the least expensive of the original three hubs options and the most expensive of the L options. It encompasses Lincoln’s commitment to progressive education and sustainability. New families are the lifeblood of a town and also a valuable demographic that I clearly support.

Please join me in voting for option L3 on Saturday morning in the ballot vote and again in the afternoon in the standing vote(s).

Sincerely,

Peter Watkinson
9 Wheeler Rd.

Letter to the editor: a look at the issues, and why I’m voting for L3

To the editor:

This Saturday we face a tough day of decision-making. I believe that there is only one proposal up for consideration that has the potential to satisfy the range of expressed aspirations and that checks enough boxes to get us to “yes” in December. That is L3.

Over the course of the development of these proposals, it seems to me that there are a number of points at issue, not necessarily competing, that are driving choices:

1. Educational vision

  • Flexible spaces and classrooms organized around rooms/hubs that facilitate collaboration and smaller spaces to allow for individualized instruction
  • Dining area (and kitchens) that are multi-use and close enough to classrooms to reduce time spent getting to and from lunch
  • Common space for larger gatherings

2. Environmental concerns

  • Achieving net zero
  • Appropriate sizing and location of solar panels
  • Minimizing demolition
  • Intelligent reuse/recycling/repurposing where possible

3. Aesthetics of the campus

  • Preservation of the unique landscape of buildings surrounding the center ballfield
  • Respect for the value of Lincoln’s architectural heritage
  • Concern regarding radical change in campus appearance

4. Shared space/community use

  • Preservation of easily accessible spaces for voting and hosting Town Meeting—Smith Gym and Donaldson Auditorium, a.k.a. Brooks auditorium
  • Creation of common area(s) and kitchen(s) for community use after school hours

5. Community/rec center

  • Concern that most expensive project will dim prospects for a community/rec center

6. Budget

  • Concern with increase in taxes
  • Perception of unnecessary “frill” expenditures
  • Spending close to bonding limit—“maxing out the credit card”

For some, budget is a serious issue that will drive decision-making. Town boards and committees talk about what is affordable for the town, and what are responsible and prudent investments. But what is deemed affordable, prudent, and responsible for the town may not seem so for individual homeowners/taxpayers.

Budget-driven decisions are legitimate and should not be dismissed or deemed irresponsible.
All of the choices are expensive, running from $49 million for R/Repair to $94.3 million for C/Compact. Tax impacts will be appreciable. While some seniors thankfully can use the array of senior tax relief programs offered by the town, the majority do not. Some will be digging deep.

Suggesting that we do not have to pick any of the options offered, including the R/Repair option, ignores reality. Our buildings have not had substantial repairs and/or upgrades since our last building project in 1994. We have made repairs, we have done the basics. Systems are old and need replacements. Undertaking the major repair projects triggers state code requirements and adds expense. That is why the comprehensive R/Repair option is on the table. We simply cannot do piecemeal repairs spread out over years. Building codes do not allow us to take this path. Doing nothing is irresponsible. Doing nothing is NOT an option.

The R/Repair option will proved a completely rehabilitated facility with an anticipated life expectancy of 30+ years, but it offers little else. It offers no programmatic/educational enhancements. It offers no ability to achieve net zero.

Getting to “yes” in December will require a coalition and compromise. Only L3 meets the most substantive concerns that will translate into community support so that we can reach a “yes” vote on December. It may not be the ideal solution for everyone, and certainly not for those driven by budget concerns alone, but it is not the most expensive option, and local experts in design construction and energy applications say there may be ways to bring the cost down in this option while maintaining hubs, educational enhancements, and programs, potentially allowing savings to be shifted to a community/rec center. L3 is more flexible and “forgiving” than C, and will allow the town to come together to get to “yes.”

The passion we have been reading on Lincoln talk is good—it means we care. Let’s sustain the passion and ensure we continue respectful debate with open minds. At the end of Town Meeting, we as a town must feel whole. We should see that our debate and decisions reflect sensitivity to our entire community. We must be mindful that decisions made today are an investment that will benefit Lincoln for generations to come.

See you on Saturday… and please consider L3 as a wise choice for now and for our future.

Sincerely,

Sara Mattes
Conant Rd.

New check-in procedure for Town Meeting

Election officers greeting residents arriving for the Special Town Meeting on June 9 will be using electronic Poll Pads to check in voters as they did for early voters in the 2016 election. Voters will not have to join a line according to the first letter of their last name but instead may go to any election officer at the check-in table.

The Poll Pad tablets will allow inspectors to check in a voter by manually entering the voter’s name, or by scanning the bar code on the back of his or her driver’s license. The Poll Pad matches the name and date of birth of the person on the voter list with the same information encoded on the license, but does not capture or store that information.

Once you’re verified as a registered voter, the checker will stamp your hand with a V and then give you a ballot and a Sharpie pen. 

Check in begins at 8:15 a.m. Check in early, then go for a walk or get a cup of coffee, but come back for a prompt 9:30 start.

Letter to the editor: Mostue supports option L3

To the editor:

First, I applaud all the individuals who have worked so hard on the most difficult Lincoln issue I have witnessed in my 26 years in town. Thank you.

In almost every project during my 40 years of architectural practice, I have had to help clients make the best possible decisions in allocating limited resources across greater needs. After careful consideration, I plan to support SBC Option L3 based on several beliefs. I call them beliefs because many of you will disagree with at least a few:

  • Some action needs to be taken.
  • A comprehensive approach is better than a piecemeal approach for many reasons stated in eloquent detail by Gary Taylor’s May 31 post on LincolnTalk (Lincoln Digest, Vol 64, Issue 31) and others. [Editor’s note: Taylor’s post has also been published here in the Lincoln Squirrel.] 
  • Preserving existing structures, site infrastructures, and the embodied energy they collectively represent is the most environmentally sustainable decision that can be made in planning for construction.
  • Sustainability considerations should not stop with preservation. (Aside: The SBC must early and clearly establish the community’s priority focus among the types of sustainability—energy performance vs. low carbon footprint vs. health vs. cash savings. Strategies for each can conflict and all may not be economically achievable within a single project. Hard choices will inevitably have to be made. Clear priorities will help to make them.)
  • Preserving history has value.
  • Preserving aged trees has value.
  • Giving clear direction to the design team will now allow them to focus their creativity and improve the selected design.
  • L3 achieves a number of educational objectives.
  • L3 is not significantly less compact than alternatives.
  • L3 has the potential to be tightened in ways that will reduce area.
  • L3 lends itself better to potentially reducing construction costs.
  • L3 preserves and could actually enhance the existing attractive campus feel.
  • L3 exercises a modicum of fiscal prudence—leaving some allowance for energy conservation upgrades, prudent maintenance, future support for school budgets and teachers, a community center, the fear of project cost overruns or unforeseen town expenditures, and the like.
  • L3 has the best chance to win at the polls.

In a democracy, not every individual gets his/her cake and eats it, too. But I think it is now time that action must be taken, and the most reasonable path seems to me to be L3.

Sincerely,

Brooks Mostue
3 Lexington Rd., Lincoln

Letter to the editor: a brief history of the school project

To the editor:

We are approaching a critical vote on the future of Lincoln’s school facilities.  There is a long history of the various deliberations that have gone before. It is often difficult for people to become fully informed of what has gone before. As someone who has been involved for a very long time, I offer this Cliff Notes version of how we have come to the decision we face on June 9. Please become informed and come to vote.

Recent discussions on LincolnTalk and letters to the Squirrel pose numerous questions suggesting that a significant number of the commenters may be unfamiliar with the lengthy saga of efforts to address deficiencies in Lincoln’s K-8 school facilities. Many of the questions asked and the expert review requests made have been raised and addressed in in the past, but the complete record of the proceedings to date is voluminous, so it’s perhaps unreasonable simply to direct inquisitive citizens to plow through all of the documents on the subject available on the school and town websites. It may therefore be helpful to provide a short history of these efforts. For those of you interested in delving more deeply into the history, click here.

Let me say at the outset that I do not have a unique perspective on the school project proceedings, but I do have a lengthy one. I was the Selectmen’s representative on the original SBC, and eventually became co-chairman. Along with a few others, I represented Lincoln’s interests before the MSBA [Massachusetts School Building Authority]. Since then, I have served on every committee that has evaluated the options for addressing needs at the Lincoln Schools, and now am the Planning Board liaison to the SBC. 

The story begins with the so-called 1994 renovation project. In the early 1990s, the town began considering renovation of the school facilities. Architects were retained to evaluate the physical plant and to come up with an improvement plan. Their original proposal would have remedied building deficiencies, added kitchen and dining facilities common in other schools, and connected the Smith, Brooks, and Reed Gym buildings. The cost was estimated at just above $22 million.

Lincoln’s leadership, faced at the time with also building a new public safety building, sent the architects back to the drawing board to develop three options at a range of price points all significantly below the initial offering. These options were presented at Town Meeting, and the middle option, at less than $12 million, was selected.

This project obviously did not provide central dining room and kitchen or the link to Reed. It also did not address some of the glaring deficiencies identified by the architects, such as the below-grade heating system boilers in the Smith building that periodically flooded (and have on occasion been under more than 50 inches of water). Many people have interpreted the 1994 project as a complete rehabilitation of the facility, but this is simply not the case. Portions of the building needing attention remained untouched.

Because the 1994 project left a lot of needs unmet, it wasn’t long before the schools were seeking annual capital infusions to ameliorate them. In 2003, Lincoln’s Capital Planning Committee concluded that a piecemeal approach might not be the best way to deal with facilities issues and asked the School Committee to take a more comprehensive approach.

This led to studies by two architectural firms in 2004 and 2007 which identified significant facility needs. The latter of these, by [current consulting school architect] SMMA, developed a range of options running from simple repairs at $35 million to a significant rebuild at $65 million. By this time, legislation establishing the MSBA was passed, and the possibility of state funding arose. Lincoln took the opportunity to make an application to participate in the process.

Lincoln was on of 21 schools selected from among 238 applications to start the MSBA feasibility study process.  This involved a rigorous review of the condition of Lincoln’s facilities and how they matched up with both the school’s educational program and MSBA standards. This turned out to be a long and arduous process because Lincoln’s physical plant is so far beyond the norm for peer K-8 facilities in terms of size and number of classrooms, having two gyms and a large auditorium complex (needed for annual TM)—unusual in K-8 schools.

The MSBA staff questioned everything in terms of educational and facility needs, and we pushed them way beyond their normal boundaries in terms of time and effort, taking twice as long as normally allowed. Ultimately we reached an accommodation and got very favorable reimbursement rate—44 percent of qualifying facilities and 42 percent of the overall cost, a better rate than most projects in surrounding towns. 

The Preliminary Design Plan approved by MSBA had an estimated cost of $61.3 million. Scope reduction and value engineering in the development of the subsequent schematic design process cut the cost from $61.3 million to $49.9 million. With the MSBA contribution of $20.9 million, the cost to Lincoln taxpayers would have been $29 million.

Because of concerns about the cost of the project, Lincoln’s Finance and Capital Planning Committees commissioned an independent study of potential repair approaches. The resulting Maguire Report confirmed that there was no cheap way out of the problems on the school campus. It concluded that the best approach to repairs needed within 10 years would cost $33 million (in 2013 dollars) and yield little educational benefit.

In the end, the effort went for naught. Town Meeting in 2012 failed to muster the required a two-thirds vote to bond the MSBA-approved project. Lincoln applied three more times, but the MSBA bureaucracy, once burned and with many other applicants, turned Lincoln down. Lincoln is not barred from participation, but our chances of being admitted again are slim, as the MSBA can legitimately question whether or not Lincoln can effectively organize support. Town Meeting in 2017 thus decided to go it alone without MSBA participation.

So here we are, years later, facing the same basic problems, but with no MSBA support. Again, two major capital projects are looming, but we seem wisely to have agreed to sequence them. The question before residents is, how much can we responsibly spend on the schools? People’s opinions can vary, but there is no question that, at minimum, there will need to be a major investment.

MSBA evaluators, trying to pinch every penny, agreed to this fundamental need. Four different architectural firms have also agreed. All these professionals and Lincoln’s own Capital Planning Committee have favored a single, comprehensive project over serial, remedial repairs. The current Finance Committee has recently added its weight in favor of a comprehensive approach.

With years of cost escalation in a booming construction market, essential repairs will cost on the order of $49 million. The only question remaining for Lincoln residents is how much we are willing to invest in the educational enhancements that our own educators, and education professionals elsewhere, believe would benefit Lincoln’s school community, both students and teachers. 

Sincerely,

Gary Taylor
2 Beaver Pond Rd.

Letter to the editor: C or L3 deliver opportunity for 21st-century education

To the editor:

As the “town educators” group (we spoke at the April 25 School Building Committee Meeting), we wanted to offer a few thoughts before the upcoming June 9 vote. We see the opportunity for our town’s children to benefit enormously from choosing either school option C or L3. Here is why:

As we survey the educational landscape, we see a world of learning that is becoming increasingly dynamic, interconnected, and flexible. If schools of the past have been labeled as egg crates—every classroom of equal size with teachers and students isolated from one another—schools of the future (and leading schools today) have rooms of varying sizes and purposes—rooms that are separate but also can be connected.

Leading school models today have small breakout rooms, large rooms that can accommodate projects, maker spaces and engineering labs, and, most of all, flexible spaces that can be converted to a variety of different uses. These schools also seek to create beautiful as well as functional spaces—many have an abundance of natural light and use warm touches (couches, bean bag chairs, rugs, lamps) to try to combat the institutional feel of most schools and to enable informal work spaces.

With those criteria in mind, from an educational vantage point we think that either C or L3 are viable options. Both provide hub spaces to carry out a forward-looking educational vision, and both include smaller breakout rooms as well as larger spaces for project-based work. C is potentially the most flexible option; with new construction and a compact design, there are lots of opportunities to design in forward-looking ways. At the same time, we also see advantages to L3: potentially more natural light and a more seamless connection of all parts of the building to the natural surroundings, Hallways can, if well-designed, be places for displaying high-quality student work and can include couches, nooks, and places for students to work and otherwise be part of a 21st-century design.

In contrast, R, L1, and L2 do not offer this flexibility, and thus do not meet the demands of 21st-century education.  

We also see the new building as an opportunity to rethink education in forward-looking ways. It is true, as many citizens have noted, that good learning can happen anywhere; one of us can remember teaching in a converted storage closet. However, educational expectations have changed and will continue to evolve in response to our changing world. As responsive citizens, we hope to provide the kind of learning that equips our students for a 21st-century world, whether that be through differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all learners or through activities that foster adaptability, hands-on learning, problem solving, innovation, initiative, teamwork, and self-awareness. The goal should be to create spaces that facilitate powerful and up-to-date learning and teaching, not inhibit it.

The opportunities these spaces provide should be paired with opportunities for teachers to learn how to take advantage of the new design. One approach, encouraged by some of our colleagues, would be to set aside 0.5 percent of the budget to support teachers to learn how to use the new spaces well. In our case, we already have a significant amount of professional development time that could be used for these purposes and a leadership team committed to a forward-looking educational vision. We are excited by the combination of the people, space, and time, and expect our town’s children will be the beneficiaries for decades to come.

As citizens, we recognize the enormous cost of the project and urge the town both to continue to find ways to mitigate or defer the costs of the project for those on fixed incomes or those unable to pay. This might include tax deferment options or the creation of a hardship fund. Our job as a community is to find a way to develop a school that prepares the next generation of learners and leaders and also works for all of our residents. At the same time, we do not think it is wise to put a huge sum of money into what is essentially yesterday’s school model.

We appreciate the opportunity to weigh in and look forward to the discussion on Saturday.

Sincerely,  

Jal Mehta, Jen Holleran, Liz City, Cathie Bitter, and Mia Chung-Yee

The school project: a look back since 2012

width=(Editor’s note: the links to articles and letters to the editor were updated on June 1, 2018.)

As a service to readers in advance of the Special Town Meeting on Saturday, June 9, here are links to past Lincoln Squirrel stories about the school project, as well as letters to the editor and some of the documents cited in those stories.

The articles go back to late 2012, shortly after the last town-wide school project vote took place—and also when the Lincoln Squirrel began publication. For earlier school project history, information on educational impacts, and all official documents, see the School Building Committee website.

Details on the June 9 meeting

Charts and slide decks

News articles

2018:

2017:

2016:

2015:

2014:

2013:

2012:

Recent letters to the editor

Letter from the moderator #4: voting procedures on Saturday

Editor’s note: This is the fourth in a series of pieces by Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden about preparations and procedures for the Special Town Meeting on June 9. The other letters are here:

To the editor:

First, let me remind everyone that you must be a registered voter in Lincoln in order to vote at the June 9 meeting. 

As has been publicized, three votes are planned for the June 9 Special Town Meeting:

Vote #1: Ballot vote — Voters will indicate their first choice among the five school concepts.  These votes will be recorded on a ballot and counted by our tabulation machines.  The top three concepts will move forward to the second vote.

Before we take the second vote, I will provide a warning of approximately 15 minutes with a time certain for the vote so that voters can get into their seats for the count. At the announced time, the doors will be closed and no one else will be permitted into the gym or the auditorium. We must do this to ensure an accurate vote count.

Vote #2: Standing vote — Voters will be asked to stand up for the concept they support. The two concepts with the most votes will move on to the third vote.

Vote #3: Standing vote — Voters will be asked to stand up for the concept they support of the two remaining. The concept that gets the majority is the one that the SBC will develop and bring to a bond vote in December.

Questions have been raised about what will happen if one concept gets a majority of the vote after vote #1. This is a Town Meeting, and as moderator, I believe that it is important for the town to proceed to Vote #2, no matter the outcome of the first vote. The nature and importance of this meeting require that we obtain the town’s clear preference; with that in mind, we will move to the second vote.

I have also been asked what will happen if, after Vote #2, one concept has a slim majority. As has been publicized, the School Building Committee will move forward with whichever concept gets the majority, and if one concept receives 51 percent or more, we must respect that outcome. However, I will use moderator’s discretion in the event that one concept gets between 50 percent and 51 percent in Vote #2. If that is the scenario, I believe that in the long run it will better for the town if we proceed to Vote #3 between the two most popular concepts. 

These votes will be carefully recorded and the results announced. By the very nature of voting in a democracy, there will always be some who are disappointed. The importance of open and respectful questions and comments are therefore all the more important. From my perspective, I hope that we can leave the meeting feeling good about the way we conducted ourselves. 

Sincerely,

Sarah Cannon Holden, Town Moderator
Weston Rad

Letter to the editor: More details on Twisted Tree

To the editor:

We want to thank Alice for taking the time to speak with us and we were so happy to see the comments from the article along with the texts and emails we received.

We are still working through some of the last details but did want to clarify a small point. We will not be operating a British-style tavern—rather, we are hoping to create an environment where friends and neighbors can meet and spend time together. We hope the Twisted Tree will be a place for you stop in to get a great cup of coffee and leave with a sense of community, or perhaps a bit of news. In the future, we do intend to apply for a license to serve beer and wine with the intent of having mimosas, shandies, wines, and craft beers, but that will be down the line. 

The Twisted Tree Cafe will primarily be a breakfast and lunch spot. We will have mobile ordering for the commuters, tables and chairs for those want to relax, and a counter top for those that want to work. We’ll have hand-crafted espresso coffees for those that want to savor and big-brewed coffees for those that need the fuel. We’ll have an array of foods including fresh, healthy food, pastries, and vegan and gluten-free options. 

We look forward to serving you in the coming months and years.

Sincerely,

CJ and Christine Doherty
Reiling Pond Road, Lincoln