(Editor’s note: The Lincoln Squirrel was on vacation during the last week in March but will post stories in the coming days about the March 23 Town Meeting.)
By Alice Waugh
Residents approved spending $17,700 from the town’s stabilization fund for architectural and engineering work in hopes of submitting a second school building project feasibility study to the state—though not after several residents argued that the town should pursue its own path toward a modernized school building.
The funds will be used to assess the work done so far by the School Building Committee and see which parts of a feasibility study submitted earlier to the Massachusetts State Building Authority can be reused for a modified campus design proposal. That feasibility study led to a school building design and funding proposal that voters rejected at a special Town Meeting in November. The MSBA later rejected a revised “L-shaped proposal” from the town, saying it was different from the plan that the MSBA had previously approved for funding. If the earlier proposal had passed in November, the MSBA would have supplied $21 million of the $49 million cost of the project.
At the March 23 Town Meeting, School Committee chair Jennifer Glass said that a “yes” vote on Article 10 would serve only to “keep the option for state funding on the table.” Further town votes would be needed to appropriate money for schematic designs and then actual construction, she said. A “no” vote is “your signal to us that you don’t think it’s important to keep the possibility of state funding open.”
The motion was approved by voice vote with a handful of “no” votes, and Town Meeting moderator Sarah Cannon Holden declared that the required two-thirds majority had been achieved.
The Lincoln Journal erroneously reported in its March 28 edition that the measure had been defeated, causing Glass to send a letter to the editor, which she asked the Lincoln Squirrel to publish as well (click here to download). (The Journal subsequently posted a correction, which mistakenly referred to the school measure as Article 12.)
For this second time around, “the part that I really hope will be different” is the point at which one of several design options included in the feasibility study is selected, Glass said. “That’s the point where all of you started to feel like we were selling you something… I would propose a radical departure from what we did before” and “make that decision as a town.”
Earlier in March, the School Committee voted to approve and submit a new statement of interest to the Massachusetts School Building Authority by the MSBA’s April 10 deadline. About 10 percent of school districts that submit statements of interest are subsequently invited to submit a feasibility study, Glass said. A response is not expected for several months.
At Town Meeting, several residents argued that the town should not be tied down to the MSBA’s timelines and procedures.
“We should make use of this time, this hiatus if you will, to further our understanding of the L-shaped proposal and the ways we can make it work,” said Adam Greenberg, a member of the recently formed Lincoln Campus Coalition (LCC). “I feel strongly that waiting until the MSBA decision only delays the process.”
“I don’t believe that staying true to our values and tradition as a community needs to be at odds with the state process. I think we can do both,” Glass said.
According to a handout available at Town Meeting, a group of Lincoln architects and designers informally known as the “Fireside Seven,” led by the LCC, developed the L-shaped design alternative that was ultimately rejected by the MSBA.
Alluding to the desire of some residents to maximize opportunities for community use of a new school building, LCC member Ken Hurd said the town should “take a holistic approach” and view the issue as “a Lincoln project, not just a school project.”
School Building Committee member David Beenhouwer responded that the first plan rejected by residents, which called for a single large cafeteria, was actually the best for community use. “The MSBA does not support community spaces per se unless they serve a school function,” he said.
Others argued that Lincoln needs the state’s help and therefore must adhere to its procedures. “We cannot responsibly do this project without at least asking for state money,” said Maggy Pietropaolo. “If we get money from the state, we all pay less. This is a no-brainer.”
Members of the LCC listed on the handout are Douglas Adams, Gary Anderson, Ken Bassett, Gustav Beerel, Penny Billings, Buz Brannen, Buzz Constable, Natalie and Tom deNormandie, Susan Fargo, Lucretia Giese, Greenberg, Hurd, Rob Jevon, Art Kluge, Judith Lawler, Mary Helen Lorenz, Alex MacLean, Brooks Mostue, Sara Mattes, David O’Neil, Peter Sugar and Harriett Todd.