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

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

Letter from the moderator #3: rules for Saturday’s Special Town Meeting

Editor’s note: This is the third 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 appear here and here.

To the editor:

By now you should have received your Special Town Meeting Warrant with the two aBy now you should have received your Special Town Meeting Warrant with the two articles to be considered on June 9th. There is very important background information. Please read it carefully so you can come as prepared as possible for the discussion and voting on Saturday. It contains the meeting’s agenda as well as overview of what we will need as we delve further into the issues, choices and considerations before us. Also included in the mailing is an explanation of the voting process. Read it carefully and bring it with you to the meeting. Please note that while there will be a presentation and update regarding the community center, there will not be a vote.

Now let’s get into the rules of the meeting.

There will be presentations be several boards and committees. Discussion, questions and answers, votes and more votes will follow. The procedural rules and voting procedures will, hopefully, be the containers to hold it all together. Many will want to speak, so everyone must limit their time at the microphones to two minutes. Twenty-five people at two minutes each takes close to one hour, despite what the mathematical calculation tells you. I suspect that more than 25 people will want to speak.

General meeting rules

Motion to Amend—If you wish to amend something, you must first fill out the Amendment Form found on the table at the center of the auditorium and present it to town counsel, who will be seated on the stage with the moderator.

  • Once the wording has been settled upon, you may go to the line for the microphone, state you name and address, and make your amendment.
  • The motion requires a second.
  • We will then have discussion of the amendment and vote on it. I will ask for a voice vote. It requires a simple majority to pass.
  • If it passes, then we will discuss the main motion as amended; if it does not pass, we will go back to the main motion.

Move the question—If you wish to ask the meeting to go directly to a vote on the main motion, you must go to a microphone, state your name, and move the question.

  • The motion requires a second.
  • You may not speak or ask a question before you make the motion.
  • Such a motion is not debatable.
  • I will ask for a voice vote. It requires a two-thirds vote to pass.
  • Results of votes in both the gym and the auditorium will be calculated. If it passes we will go directly to a vote on the main motion.

The moderator has the discretion to deny the motion to move the question if she feels that there has not been sufficient discussion. For example, if someone were to rise after 10 minutes of discussion, the moderator is likely to find that this is too soon for such a motion.

Point of order—If you wish to challenge some perceived procedural error, you may rise without being recognized by the moderator and announce a “point of order.”

  • Give your name and street address.
  • State your point.
  • The moderator will consider your point and rule on it.

On Wednesday, I will send out the voting guidelines for the votes we will be taking on June 9.

Reminder: You may check in starting at 8:15 a.m. We will start the meeting promptly at 9:30.

Sincerely,

Sarah Cannon Holden, town moderator
Weston Road.

Letter to the editor: support conservation and option L3

To the editor:

The recent flurry of activity has flooded my inbox with schools-related information and commentary. Committees, individual residents, and town leaders have made notable and at times insightful observations on what is a path forward that will best serve the educational needs of future generations.

All of that is fine. But in the pursuit of a schools plan to carry to the next level of development, we seem to have become mired down in a discussion of “guiding principles” related to “educational programs” and “community.” I would have thought that an underlying value long held by the town—conservation of man-made and natural resources—would have found its way into the dialogue. Instead we dwell on vague notions of “optimizing connections” and “campus feel.”

Conservation has taken many forms in Lincoln. We have protected expanses of beautiful and sensitive landscapes from development. Colonial-era homes and their grounds have been protected and given new purpose; mid-century Modernist homes are being preserved and increasingly purchased by young families; and public buildings like Center School and Bemis Hall have been transformed, not through replacement but rather through carefully crafted renovations.

The Lincoln School campus should not be an exception. Rather than hauling half the existing school to landfills, we should instead be focused on the plans that transform existing valuable structures to meet educational goals. Years of deferred improvements have taken their toll and that has been unfortunate. When we walk though the Smith/Brooks building, we should stop pointing out all the problems—we’ve been doing that for a long time. Instead we should be focused on how an investment of possibly $90+ million can yield a revitalized and humanely scaled school that embraces a central campus green unlike any other public school system in Massachusetts.

I support SBC plan L3. The plan fulfills our town’s need for a quality educational environment while conserving the remarkable campus setting that has served us well for generations.

Sincerely,

Ken Bassett
37 Page Rd., Lincoln

Twisted Tree Cafe coming to site of the former Whistle Stop, Trail’s End

From whistle to trail to tree… C.J. and Christine Doherty in front of the future Twisted Tree Cafe.

The Mall at Lincoln Station will have a new breakfast and lunch spot this fall when the Twisted Tree Cafe debuts in the former Trail’s End Cafe space.

Lincoln residents C.J. and Christine Doherty (no relation to the founders of the longtime Lincoln service station) recently signed a lease for the cafe space, which has been vacant since Trail’s End closed in March. This is their first foray into the food service business, though “it’s an area we always wanted to get into,” said Christine. “It’s a passion project for us. We spent the last five or six years creating a vision, and we were really just waiting for the right opportunity to present itself.”

C.J. Doherty owns a water/sewer excavation business and Christine works in pharmaceutical sales, and the couple also owns a property development company, she said. The former Medford residents, who now have three young children, “fell in love with Lincoln as we drove in minivans to get kids to sleep while had a cup of coffee,” and bought their Reiling Farm Road house in 2015, C.J. said.  

In naming their new business, “we wanted to incorporate what we think it an iconic aspect of town” — the twisted catalpa tree in front of the library… hopefully the cafe that bears its name will be a landmark in its town right,” he said.

The new owners described a vision in which their cafe “can serve the role of what a British tavern does in a rural town—a place where people come together, share a drink and some food and the events of the day, and get to know each other—a gathering place for the community where everyone can feel at home,” C.J. said.

Day-to-day operations at the Twisted Tree will be handled by an experienced general manager and assistant manager, the Dohertys said. Assuming they apply for a beer and wine license, alcohol won’t be served until at least a year after the cafe opens while they await the required town and state approvals, they said.

The menu will span a variety of styles and tastes, aiming for both fresh, local ingredients as well as convenience. Customers will be able to order everything from an egg and cheese sandwich on an English muffin to “more trendy items like cheddar and arugula on a brioche bun, or chia pudding,” he said. “There might be a $2 sandwich or a $9 sandwich, with food diverse enough to meet the needs of everyone, whether it’s a CEO or an electrician on their way to work,” C.J. said.

In a departure from the business’ last change of hands when there was minimal renovation, the Twisted Tree will have a very different look inside. “it’ll be as though it’s a brand-new place,” C.J. said. The Dohertys are also installing a range, griddle and ovens, which the Whistle Stop and Trail’s End lacked.

If all goes well with contractors and town approvals, the Dohertys hope to have a soft opening at the end of August and be up and running when everyone gets back to the school year routine in September.

Committees recommend school options L3 and C; selectmen also include L2

The School Committee, School Building Committee and Board of Selectmen recommended that voters approve school project Option L3 or Option C at the June 9 Special Town Meeting, while selectmen also included Option L2.

Options R, L1 and L2 do not provide the hubs for grades 3–8 that educators have deemed crucial for effective and flexible teaching and learning today, although L2 offers two “flex spaces.” Cost estimates put the L-shaped Option L3 at $93.9 million and Option C, the compact design, at $97 million.

More information:

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

[tcpaccordion id=”17948″]

In a paper poll at its meeting on May 30, concepts L3 and C were recommended by all 16 SBC members and liaisons in attendance (plus member Peter Sugar, who submitted a written response due to his planned absence). Five of the 16 additionally voted for concept L2 as a third recommendation, and one member/liaison voted to recommend all five concepts.

There was little discussion of the reasons for members’ choices except to say that they reflected the guiding principles they adopted last fall after receiving input from the public, other town officials and educators. SBC members had the option of including written comments on their ballots, but those comments were not made public.

Selectmen reject two of the concepts

The Board of Selectmen recommended against Option R as not meeting the town’s needs. “The repair-only option does not seem to me to meet the core mission of what we need to accomplish as a town with this school project,” Selectman James Craig said at the board’s May 21 meeting. “I think we’re well beyond just a repair option, and this does not meet our educational values or our environmental values. I just can’t support the expenditure of $49 million to get us to a spot in time where we’re just treading water.”

Selectmen Jennifer Glass and James Dwyer agreed. “There is nil academic value [in the repair-only option]. I don’t think it’s a good use of money because it doesn’t give you the [return on investment] you want,” Dwyer said.

Option L1 “does not, in our judgment, provide sufficient long-term educational, environmental or financial value,” members said in a May 23 statement. “We believe that the remaining school building concepts (L2, L3 and C) are all reasonable and viable plans that will support, to differing degrees, the long-range needs of our school and community.”

Selectmen also strongly supported the Finance Committee’s recommendation to stay within the town’s statutory debt limit and worried about the substantial tax increase that residents will see.

“I worry about how this tax burden is going to change our community—who sticks around and who leaves,” Dwyer said. “Do we become a ‘graduate and evacuate’ like some of our other towns, where they move in for schools that are awesome and then they leave? The community deteriorates and people are not here for the right reasons. They’re not here for Lincoln values; they’re just here to cash in and cash out on the schools.”

The town’s debt stabilization fund may provide some cushioning, and there are some tax relief programs available to qualifying residents, “but we should look to see if there are any other ways to soften what’s going to be a dramatic tax impact, whatever options gets voted on,” Craig said.

“We want to assure the town that the board is mindful of the magnitude of the financial investment the town is considering,” selectmen said in their joint statement. “Each individual will need to consider and answer the questions of personal affordability and up-front cost vs. long-term value.”

Other committees weigh in

“Options R and L1 do not provide value for money,” the School Committee said in a short May 24 statement. “Options L3 and C are critical for providing 21st-century education, and the School Committee is most excited about the educational value from Option C.”

Earlier last month, the Capital Planning Committee also recommended either Option L3 or C, as did the Lincoln School Foundation this week. The Finance Committee stopped short of advocating any particular option, though members recommended against Option FPC (which is no longer on the table) because it would require borrowing more than the town is allowed to under state statute without a special exemption.