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

Last community forum before school vote is May 15

There’s one more community workshop and two school tours before the milestone vote to decide which school project scheme the town should pursue.

The public forum on the six current concepts will be on Tuesday, May 15 from 7–9:30 p.m. in the Reed Gym. This session will focus mostly on audience Q&A with the School Building Committee (SBC) and other officials, and attendees will also be asked to informally rank the concepts in order of preference.

At the forum, SBC members will walk attendees through the process they used to generate and then narrow down the concepts from 12 at the start to the current six.

Last week, the committee considered two additional school design options. One of them had been in the mix before and one was a concept that the SBC requested from the consulting architects at a set price point of $85 million. However, “after discussion, it was determined that neither one of them brought anything incremental when compared to what we already had,” SBC Chair Chris Fasciano said.

The Board of Selectmen has yet to issue a recommendation on the options, though members are hoping to provide some guidance without being “overly directive,” Selectman Jennifer Glass said at the board’s May 7 meeting. The Finance Committee also debated the matter last week but decided not to recommend any of the options over the others, though they may yet recommend a dollar amount to keep in reserve when the town votes on bonding.

At its May 16 meeting, the SBC will finalize the concepts to be presented on June 9. Members will discuss on May 30 how they would rank the six options and why.

The June 9 Town Meeting will feature two votes: one using the voting machines and the second being a stand-and-count vote. In the first vote, registered voters will be asked to choose one of the six school options and possibly also what factors were most important in their decision. The votes will then be tabulated by machine, and the two options receiving the most votes will be presented for the final standing vote.

The SBC is hosting tours of the new Hanscom Middle School and the Lincoln School on Monday, May 21, where school officials will point out the educational benefits of various design attributes in both buildings. Anyone interested in the Hanscom tour must email Janice Gross at jgross@lincnet.org by noon on Monday, May 14, as all Hanscom Air Force Base visitors must provide in advance their full legal name as shown on their driver’s license and date of birth.

Visitors on May 21 must travel to the base with the group by bus, which will leave the Hartwell lot at 9:30 a.m. and return by noon, with lunch provided in the multipurpose room. A tour of the Lincoln School follows at 12:45 p.m. Anyone who just wants to tour the Lincoln School should email Gross and meet at the Smith office by 12:45 p.m.

The last mile (Lincoln Through the Lens)

Fran Doyle (center) is thrilled with the completion of a new Lincoln Road sidewalk between the Ryan Estates, where she lives, and the Cambridge Trust Co. building, making it much safer for her and others to walk to the mall and other South Lincoln locations. The sidewalk is one of several planned roadway improvement projects in town. With her are (left to right) DPW Superintendent Chris Bibbo, traffic consultant John Vancor, and DPW Foreman Steve McDonald.

Correction

The May 9 article headlined “Community center group narrows focus to two concepts” incorrectly stated that the Community Center Planning and Preliminary Design Committee had formally voted not to request funding for a community center at the June 9 Special Town Meeting. The group’s charge was only for preliminary work to further the community center, inform the school process and keep the campus coordinated. The article has been updated to reflect this correction.

Community center group narrows focus to two concepts

The group planning a future community center has narrowed down its choices to two schemes that will be presented at the Special Town Meeting on June 9, probably followed by a non-binding “sense of the town” vote on which one residents prefer.

At its meeting last week, the Community Center Planning and Preliminary Design Committee decided to eliminate Scheme 2 (“L on main campus green”), but members were evenly split over which of the other two ideas they preferred. The two remaining concepts both locate the parking on the east side of the Hartwell site and leave some open space on the west side for a playground between the building and Ballfield Road.

Scheme 1 calls for removing two of the existing pods and replacing them with a community center that’s all new construction. The third pod would be renovated and used for LEAP, and a fourth small building would be used for school maintenance. Scheme 3 incorporates two of the existing pods and adds connecting space between them; as with Scheme 1, the remaining pod would be used for LEAP. Both call for at least part of the building to be two floors. In Scheme 3, the second-floor part would cover only a portion of the ground floor, which would havea  larger open area.

 

The CCPPDC’s work will conclude after the June Town Meeting, with a future group expected to supervise detailed design and final cost estimates. The June meeting will not include a community center funding vote because the campus can’t accommodate both construction projects at the same time. Even if it could, the CCPPDC determined that the town wouldn’t see any cost savings, primarily because the projects are of such different scope that contractors would not bid on both as a package, as well as the need for installing expensive temporary classrooms.

Nonetheless, it will cost more to build a community center later rather than sooner. “Just as the cost to build a new school has skyrocketed between the first school project in 2012 until now, building costs will likely increase between now and 2023, when we are likely to break ground on a community center,” CCPPDC Vice Chair Margit Griffith said. “In today’s terms, the designs have a price tag of about $13–15 million, which looks like it will go to $20 million if building costs increase at the same rate. There are a few models that suggest things are slowing a bit—time will out.”

On the other hand, by 2023, the town will have paid off some of its debt and property values will rise in the interim, meaning the town will have “headroom” under its borrowing limit. Debt payments will be smaller in early years of repayment than if the entire sum for a school and community center was borrowed at once. 

Some residents are worried that delaying the community center is politically risky because it could be seen as “pushing it off” and disappointing seniors and others who are more interested in using that facility than a renovated school. Asked why those people should first approve an expensive school project, Griffith said, “Because it’s the right thing to do. From a value-for-dollar perspective, we can pay a hell of a lot to put an Ace bandage and keep limping along on our bad knee (the current school), or foot the bill for the knee replacement that will last for a generation or more. From a ‘Lincoln way’ perspective, we value education and this town. Now is the time to put our money where our mouths are. From a personal interest perspective, property values in towns all around us are eclipsing ours—they have new schools, we don’t.”

The CCPPDC will incorporate feedback at the June 9 Town Meeting into its final report. That feedback may take the form of a standing “sense of the town” vote or with sticky notes as at earlier public forums. The committee has three more meetings scheduled before that.

 

Lincoln Kitchen shuts its doors; ingredients for a successful business debated

Lincoln Kitchen shortly before its opening in early 2017.

Just 15 months after it opened, Lincoln Kitchen shut its doors last week, leaving Lincoln once again without a restaurant.

Asked why it closed, co-owner and Lincoln resident Jim White said simply, “It didn’t work. Perhaps I should have known better, because there were plenty of people who turned down an opportunity to put a restaurant in that space. The difficulty with it, now that I know a little bit more, is there is just isn’t enough population density and the location is out of the way. Maybe we’re wrong and didn’t know what we’re doing… I live in town and I’d love to see something succeed there.”

Lincoln Kitchen opened in February 2017, nine months after the closure of AKA Bistro. In summer 2016, White and his daughter, co-owner Elizabeth Akehurst-Moore, signed leases for that building as well as the former Whistle Stop Cafe property nearby. Trail’s End Cafe opened in the latter location in October 2016 but closed in February 2018. White said he was negotiating a termination agreement on the Lincoln Kitchen lease with the Rural Land Foundation, which owns both properties.

In 2016, Lincoln resident Richard Card made an offer for the AKA Bistro space, but the RLF went with White instead. Card had proposed a business called Blazes, a combination bookstore, restaurant, coffee shop, and cocktail bar that would also host music performances (a website for the proposal is still live).

Card said this week that he planned to reach out again to the RLF but was also seriously considering a different site in town that he declined to specify. The biggest issue with that site is the septic system, he said.

“I was disappointed in the first [AKA Bistro] situation and I don’t want to lead people on when we’re not far enough down the line to have any kind of concrete commitment,” Card said. “I thought we had a situation with the RLF and it didn’t work out, which was disappointing to me and a lot of other people. One of the reasons given to me was that they went with Lincoln Kitchen  because they had a track record and [the RLF] couldn’t afford failure. Potential restaurateurs are going to think twice about going in there, as am I.”

If Blazes does open somewhere in Lincoln, Card hopes that a more “community-based” business with events like music and poetry readings will draw enough customers to succeed. “The idea is to spark a conversation, not just go in and out,” he said. “It’s a struggle because it’s a small community, but it’s not just commercial—it’s who we are to each other.”

In the wake of Lincoln Kitchen’s closing, numerous ideas for the site have been floated on LincolnTalk, but White warned that even a small food-related business must comply with Board of Health regulations, including licensed servers. “It’s not as easy to set up as some people might think it is,” he said.

The bigger obstacle, he added, was “people wanting to see a viable commercial district conflicting with why we all moved to Lincoln in the first place: peace and quiet and open space.” To have staying power, any restaurant in Lincoln “is going to have to be subsidized in some way, either by the town, if that’s legal, or by a wealthy individual.”

L-S School Committee disputes lawsuit allegations

The Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School Committee released a statement on May 7 denying charges in a recent lawsuit that the high school discriminated against the victim of an alleged sexual assault on campus in 2013.

A former student identified only as “Jane Roe” filed suit last month, charging L-S with failure to train and supervise response to sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of Title IX. In addition to the school, the suit names Superintendent/Principal Bella Wong, Director of Special Education and Director of Student Services Aida Ramos, and East House Housemaster/Associate Principal Leslie Patterson as defendants.

According to the lawsuit, after Jane was sexually assaulted by two boys during a football game, the school did not adequately protect her from coming into contact with the boys at the school and did not provide her with sufficient educational and counseling resources. Jane later went to a therapeutic school and eventually graduated from Lawrence Academy, the suit says.

“These allegations were fully investigated at the time by the Sudbury Police and School District officials. Upon learning of the incident, School District personnel immediately provided the female student with the support and assistance necessary to pursue her studies in a safe and harassment-free environment. Appropriate measures were also taken against the alleged assailants,” the School Committee’s statement reads.

“Any allegations that the school district dragged its feet, was unresponsive to the student, or somehow tried to sweep the incident under the rug, are entirely false. Due to the nature of the incident and ages of all involved, the school district was obliged to maintain strict confidentiality.”

The statement includes a link to a 2017 letter from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which investigated the district’s response to the incident and said it found “insufficient evidence to support the complainants’ allegation” that “the school discriminated against the student by failing to respond promptly and appropriately.”

“The Superintendent-Principal and her administrative team have kept the School Committee apprised of the matters related to the incident and subsequent proceedings at all times,” the School Committee wrote, adding that it “stands behind its policies and unequivocally supports the administrators named in the lawsuit.”

Letter to the editor: mulling Trump’s Nobel nomination

To the editor:

Recently, a group of conservative Republican Trump supporters from the House of Representatives sent a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee nominating Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Notwithstanding the fact that nothing substantial has been accomplished yet, the intrinsic role of the President in the recent North Korea peace initiative is still unclear. Leaders from South Korea and North Korea have played more constructive roles. Based on previous examples, the ultimate result may take years to fulfill. 

How does Trump’s diplomatic stature compare to previous Nobel laureates and goals of the Peace Prize to justify his consideration? According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to the person who “shall have done the most or the best work for the fraternity between nations, for the abolition of standing armies, and promotion of peace congresses.”

The Norwegian Nobel Committee specifically invites “qualified people” to submit nominations, and the Nobel Foundation specifies categories of nominating individuals. Examples of such nominators include international organizations for peace and justice; university professors of history, law and social sciences; directors of peace research and international affairs institutes; former recipients; and members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and Norwegian Nobel Institute.  

I wonder how a few U.S. House of Representatives conservative members fit on that list, particularly those running for higher office this election year?

The 110 past international laureates include Malala Yousafzai, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, the Red Cross (1917, 1944 and 1963), and United Nations Commission for Refugees (1954 and 1981). The 21 past U.S. laureates include four Presidents and one Vice President, Martin Luther King Jr., Elie Wiesel (chair of the Holocaust Commission), Linus Pauling (author of No More War!), and Nicholas Murray Butler (Columbia University president and head of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).

Taken as a whole, I wonder how the Nobel Committee, the Nobel Institute, and the 131 Nobel laureates might consider the overall fit of Trump’s “unique” style, attitude regarding norms of international respect and diplomacy, and political motivation and standing of his nominators as “qualified people.” 

Lastly, when it comes time to consider his nomination, I also wonder how Norwegians will remember Trump’s offensive comments on immigration last January following the visit of Norwegian Prime Minister Solberg. The Norwegians didn’t think his standing was so worthy at the time.

Sincerely,

Gary Davis
20R Indian Camp Lane, Lincoln

Property sales in March

Indian Camp Lane — RBGC LLC to Matthew and Pascale Berkowitz for $477,000 (March 30)

44R Indian Camp Lane (affordable unit) — Gaurav Patel to Yogesh Dayma for $166,630 (March 29)

140 Lincoln Rd. — David Palmer to George and Elizabeth Creighton for $470,000 (March 29)

64 Davison Drive — Richard D. Ponn Trust to Philip and Kristen Nickson for $1,365,000 (March 20)

5 Morningside Lane — Fred Torossian to George and Sophia Kampoures for $1,020,000 (March 9)

50 Lincoln Rd. — Matthew von Wahlde to Adam and Caitlin Hogue for $785,000 (March 9)

 

No consensus from FinCom on school options or cost limit

After hours of discussion, the Finance Committee on May 3 decided not to endorse any of the school project plans over the others and did not specify a project price limit to recommend to voters. However, members made other recommendations, including that Lincoln should not appeal to the state to go over its borrowing limit.

In its discussion on that to recommend to voters at the Special Town Meeting on June 9, the FinCom also said in unanimous resolutions that:

  • The estimated construction costs, exclusive of “soft” and escalation costs, are well within the norms of comparable Massachusetts school construction costs.
  • The town should not delay the school project in hopes of more favorable construction costs down the road.
  • It is more fiscally responsible to do a single project that addresses all the needs of the building rather than doing a series of piecemeal repairs.

Members debated how much financial cushion—in the form of additional borrowing “headroom” under the town’s borrowing limit, and/or cash to leave in the debt stabilization fund—the town ought to preserve after borrowing for the school project. They also discussed how much of that fund should be used to cushion the first year or two of repayments or to reduce the initial bond amount.

Much of the uncertainty on the part of committee members stems from the fact that several of the six cost estimates for the school project are very close to the town’s current $97 million borrowing limit (Option C is estimated at $95 million and Option L3 at $89 million). And those figures do not include another $2 million for a net-zero energy-efficient building with solar panels.

Adding to the uncertainty is the distinct possibility that the price tag on whatever option is chosen on June 9 could drop before the bonding votes happen in the fall, as officials noted on April 30.

“It’s entirely realistic to expect a fair amount of movement in the cost estimates between June 9 and December 1, but it’s not realistic to expect any shift” before June, School Committee chair Tim Christenfeld said at Thursday’s FinCom meeting.

In 2011, the SBC initially included preK in the building and adding a two-story addition, but to reduce cost and square footage, preK was taken out and the addition was reduced to one floor.

Also, “there are many, many contingencies built in at this stage of the process,” Selectman and former School Committee chair Jennifer Glass said on Sunday. “As decisions are made, the ‘knowns’ replace the ‘estimates’ and some of the contingencies get reduced.

“For this project, I would never presume to say that history is an indicator of future performance,” Glass continued. “We cannot make any guarantees of a percentage decrease—we can only say that the SBC will take the June 9th vote as a budget cap, and do everything reasonable to reduce up-front costs to the town without overly sacrificing long-term value.”

The FinCom tabled its discussion on a financial buffer until its next meeting on May 22.

No agreement on cost limit

Committee members also wrestled with recommending a specific cost ceiling for the school project.

“I struggled mightily with this one. I do believe there should be a ‘do not exceed’ number… but I struggle with giving guidance on a specific number,” FinCom member Andy Payne said. “At the end of the day, it’s a resident decision and I feel that very strongly… My concern is that we collectively [on town boards and committees] don’t necessarily have a good pulse on the resident appetite here. My worry is that without that pulse, we risk not having a supermajority” in the fall, when a two-third majority is required at Town Meeting to bond a project.

Setting a dollar-limit recommendation is “putting the cart before the horse and trying to imagine the will of the town,” said member Tom Sander.

Without first setting parameters for how much money or borrowing capacity to hold in reserve, “I feel like we’d be making a decision without making some of the building-block decisions,” member Gina Halsted said.

Outgoing and non-voting FinCom member Eric Harris was not so circumspect. He proposed a limit of $85 million for a school project in light of the fact that more money will be needed for a community center right after the school is finished. A community center is currently expected to cost at least $13 million. However, the town will have paid off some of its current and future debt by the time that project is bonded and property values will increase, so its total borrowing limit will be higher than it is today.

$85 million “is a reasonable expense for the town. As a Finance Committee, we should say we can spend the amount of money that’s likely to pass [at Town Meeting] and that meets everyone’s needs, not just the school,” Harris said. “I just think we need to pay more attention to building a prudent plan that includes both… I’m worried that the community center is getting pushed off in a way that’s going to piss a lot of people off.”

Design options

Turning to discussion of which of the six design options to recommend, if any, “I believe narrowing down concepts is the School Building Committee’s job. Why should we be operating as a shadow SBC?” Payne said.

FinCom chair Jim Hutchinson disagreed, saying, “We’re not talking about disabling any concepts from being selected by the town; we’re trying to help residents with our opinion, not just on the cost straight up, but on the value of those concepts.”

Although it didn’t take a formal vote, the committee was deadlocked 3-3 on whether to recommend for or against specific designs, though members agreed in principle that the $109 million “FPC” option was not feasible, and that the $49 million repair-only option was not fiscally prudent.

But resident Owen Beenhouwer, an architect and veteran of past School Building Committees, argued that the FinCom should strongly recommend against the repair-only option, saying the last major school project did not go far enough. He implied that the current plan to offer a broad range of options to voters is an overreaction to the negative vote on a single option in 2012.

“I am disturbed at the fact that next year, we are looking at the 25-year anniversary of what I consider to be a bad job in 1994,” he said. “People really want help… people are puzzled with the mountains of information and too many choices to be made, and are looking to the committees to be helpful in some way.”

A repair-only option would be “a bad investment,” Beenhouwer continued. “I speak from experience as an architect that we are pushing the ball down the road. It would be better to turn the task back to the SBC and say ‘try again’ instead of saying it would be acceptable just to do a repair job.”