Why Are We Here?

How Did We Get Here?

Where Do We Go Next?

Why are We Here?• Facilities Needs

– Portions of facilities over 70 years old – 1994 renovation project did not address all needs; left Brooks untouched – Energy inefficient– Roof, heat and air circulation, electrical system need updating/replacement– No fire suppression, not up to ADA, seismic and snow-load codes– Playing fields not well drained and often unusable– No room to build for the future

• Educational Needs– Lacking differentiated/flexible learning spaces– Few teacher preparation and work spaces – Building organization sprawling, haphazard, reduces instructional time– Facilities do not provide full ADA accessibility– Cafeteria facilities deficient, limit educational resources

• MSBA Process to Gain State Funding– MSBA dictates timing – Lincoln has extended normal schedule– MSBA and Lincoln agree up front on educational program to be served

– Preferred Option intended to yield 50+ year facility to serve program

– MSBA: “We will not spend $ on a bad idea.”– MSBA approves design/funding; up or down vote by Town

How Did We Get Here?

Origin of the SBC

• 2005: Capital Planning Committee asks school to do a holistic study of facility needs.

• 2006-07: SMMA completes study which is made available to residents at Town Meeting in March 2008. Repair/rebuild options range from $33M to $65M.

• 2008: SC, with BOS and FinCom approval, submits SOI to MSBA.

• 2009: MSBA invites Lincoln into renovation/build pipeline based on educational and facility needs.

• 2010: Feasibility Study approved at TM and through ballot.

SBC Activity

• Thorough review of facility deficiencies, current and future educational needs

• Development of goals and objectives based upon user group and community inputs

• Considered range of options from repair to new build, weighed costs, benefits, State reimbursement, taxpayer impacts, community views

• Worked with MSBA to select and gain approval of Preferred Option –now proceed to design phase

Critical Comparison

• Repair Scenario: $26 million– Minimal expenditure to keep facility operating and meets most

code/safety requirements for 20 years – Not within current MSBA process, reimbursement uncertain– Most optimistic assumptions: One shot construction 30%

reimbursement, exclusion of dislocation costs, 20 year bonding

• MSBA Minimal: $42 million– Partial renovation of current structures, addition of cafeterias,

Fieldhouse link– 35% reimbursement, exclusion of dislocation costs, 30 year bonding

• Preferred Option: $49 million– Reconstruction/relocation of Smith (38%)– Renovation of rest of facilities (62%) – 40% reimbursement, 30 year bonding

Repair Analysis $26 ~ $32 M

Envelope and Finishes $6.98 MRoof and insulationWindows and Exterior (partial)Finishes (about 50%)

$4.80$0.78 $1.40

Code Compliance $6.2 MSeismic CodeFire SuppressionHandicapped AccessEmergency Lighting

$1.77$1.90$0.60$1.90

HVAC $4.95 MHigh Efficiency BoilersRepairs to existing systemEnergy Management System

$2.35$1.00$1.60

Electrical $0.8 M Replace Switch Gear $0.80

Plumbing $1.3 M Fountains, repairs and code issues $1.30

Hazardous Materials $0.9 M AbatementReplacement materials

$0.58$0.33

Temporary Classrooms $2.5 M 12 classrooms/offices – 30 months $2.50

Civil and site repairs $0.55 M Roads, Walks and Curbs (about 50%)Drainage and landscape repair

$0.31$0.24

New Construction $6.18 MCafé (2) and KitchenSmith Boiler RoomField House Connector

$4.91$0.49$0.78

Proposed Site Concept

Smith Building Demolition for new Environmental Gardens

Smith Building Demolition for new Play fields and Parking

Preferred Option Concept

Benefits of the Preferred Option

• Gives Lincoln an essentially new facility– Replaces oldest facilities with new construction better

integrated with Brooks– Fully renovates the remainder of the building– Energy efficient, meets all current codes

• Provides spaces suited to current educational needs, flexibility for future

• Improves “public” spaces, access and security• Concentrates building on site – better traffic flow,

improved athletic fields, options for expansion, other uses• Maximizes MSBA reimbursement and Lincoln’s bang for

the buck

Bottom Line

• Repair Scenario: $26 million– Status quo facilities, maximum disruption– Lincoln net $20 million; annual cost $1.46 million

• MSBA Minimal: $42 million– No facility transformation, but adds link and

cafeterias, significant disruption– Lincoln net $27 million, annual cost $1.53 million

• Preferred Option $49 million– Transformed facility, better public spaces, site options– Lincoln net $29 million, annual cost $1.63 million

Median Tax Bill

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

17,000

$11,399$12,102

$12,942$13,243

$14,535

+ 23

+ 441

+ 826

+ 1,005

+ 843

+ 1, 026

+ 1,312

+ 1,181

Operating with Current Debt Repair Option SBC Preferred Option

FY16 Total Bill Repair $12, 125

Preferred $12,945

FY19 Total Tax Bill Repair $13,383

Preferred $13,968

FY21 Total Tax BillRepair $14,069

Preferred $14,555

FY25 Total Tax BillRepair $15,540

Preferred $15,716

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

17,000

$11,399$12,102

$12,942

$13,243

$14,535

+ 23

+ 441

+ 826

+ 1,005

+ 843

+ 1, 026

+ 1,312

+ 1,181

Operating with Current Debt Repair Option SBC Preferred Option

FY16 Total Bill Repair $12, 125

Preferred $12,945

FY19 Total Tax Bill Repair $13,383

Preferred $13,968

FY21 Total Tax BillRepair $14,069

Preferred $14,555

FY25 Total Tax BillRepair $15,540

Preferred $15,716

Debt CapacityRating Agency Benchmark

% Change in Median Tax Bill

Case for the Preferred Option

• Major expenditures required simply to repair existing facilities• Within the MSBA process incremental expenditures are borne almost

entirely by the State – Preferred Option dominates• Reasonable incremental expenditures yield essentially new,

educationally more effective, energy efficient facilities that position Lincoln for the future

• The investment is prudent– Debt service within range deemed appropriate by rating agencies, room for

other capital projects – Tax impacts in line with past experience– Faces the facts - doesn’t kick the can down the road to be faced again in 20

years– Maximizes opportunity for State funding– Maintains Lincoln’s wise commitment to education, preserves Town

character and real estate values

Where Do We Go Next?• Recent Developments:

– Dec. 2011: Submitted Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) to MSBA

– Jan. 2012: MSBA Board of Directors approved Lincoln’s PSR

• Next Steps – Feb. 2012: Begin Schematic Design (SD)– June 2012: Submit SD, reviewed by MSBA– Nov. 2012: Town Vote

• SBC:– Continue working with OMR to refine project through

schematic design and value engineering– Community outreach to every Lincoln citizen through

forums, neighborhood gatherings, website, and mailings.

Schematic Design Process

• SCHEMATIC DESIGN: In-depth building and site investigations; code analysis; further development of the preferred solution to a full schematic design level of site & building plans, building elevations, finishes, M/E/P/IT systems, sustainable design features.

• CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES: Prepared by OMR and Skanska that result in a single reconciled cost estimate to be used as the basis of the construction budget and the Project Scope and Budget Agreement (PSBA).

• TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET: Based on the reconciled construction cost estimate; Value Engineering; project related costs; MSBA reimbursement rate and Estimated Total Maximum Facilities Grant.

• KEY DATES: June 7, 2012 - SD Submitted to MSBA

July 25, 2012 - MSBA Board of Directors Meeting

November 25, 2012 - Local Approval (120 days)

Schematic Design Schedule

Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct

Tow

n V

ote

SB

C K

icko

ff

MS

BA

Sub

mitt

al

MS

BA

BO

D V

ote

Continue Public Discussion & OutreachSchematic Design MSBA

SBC MeetingsPublic Forums TBD

Proposed Outdoor Learning Environment Concept

Smith Building Environmental Garden Footprint