Hi Andy - a few responses below your comments, with a ## sign before mine. Appreciate the exchange! Seth,
I don't believe the numbered items you listed below are 'undisputed' facts, mainly cause I'm going to dispute some of them and clarify some others in which I think the statement is a bit misleading (though feel free to indicate where my dispute is incorrect)
First, for reference, this is the current wording on the Warrant Article that we are voting on for the Special Town Meeting:
"To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate by taxation, by transfer from available funds, including stabilization funds, by borrowing or any combination thereof, a sum of money to hire the necessary project management and design consultants to develop schematic level design plan options and cost estimates for the proposed Community Center; with the intent of presenting said choices at a fall, 2023 Special Town Meeting for a vote on a preferred option; or take any action relative thereto."
I will point out that the wording is fairly generic and I believe this is intentional to give the Community Center Building Committee some flexibility in what they are doing.
I will dispute the individual points below. I originally wrote this with considerable more commentary, but decided that a more concise dispute / clarification would be more easily digestible.
1) this vote will ONLY authorize work to develop two similar $25m concepts (not including ongoing operating costs) at a cost of $325k.
The vote provides funds for professional services to develop plans and cost estimates on a community center on the Hartwell site, it doesn't stipulate what is being developed.
## The warrant article doesn’t. But the CCBC has described in rather copious detail exactly what they intend to develop. I’m not sure why someone would vote “yes” believing that they will design materially different.
What is generally assumed is that they will develop the two existing concepts.
## I believe it is generally assumed because they’ve explicitly stated that is what they intend to do. The committee could add in stipulations, though they are not bound to in any way to do so.
## Agreed - but they do not wish to add in stipulations, and have said so. To be absolutely clear here, and with complete deference to the CCBC… they believe that these issues have already been studied comprehensively, that the needs and scope is well understood, and that these designs are the answer. And we are voting to pay professional service providers to start working up plans to build these designs. I think it’s very reasonable to assume that’s exactly what they’re going to do.
2) The presumption is that an analysis of needs has already been completed, is sufficient, and has weighed alternatives. This is not a vote to go back to the drawing board or develop a new plan. It’s a vote to move forward on the existing $25m plans.
The vote is to provide funds to move forward on plans for a community center on the Hartwell site. It does imply that the case for renovating Bemis / renovating the pods / using Pierce House as the solution is off the table. It does NOT require two $25m plans to be developed.
## Again, I think these are distinctions without much of a difference. If you show up asking a service provider to develop two plans you’ve studied for 10 years, they’re going to do that. I think if you vote yes, that’s what you should expect to happen.
If you feel we need a fundamentally new set of alternatives and a new needs analysis, that takes into account current economic and fiscal circumstances as well as future town capital needs, you should vote no. That is not going to be the output of this project.
3) this project does not incorporate a new facility for LEAP.
The project allocates funds for renovation of the pod that currently houses LEAP, but LEAP itself is not intended to be housed in the Community Center in any of the current plans.
## I think we’re saying the same thing - it contemplates a “light” renovation of the existing LEAP pod, not a new facility.
4) the output of the project will be a better estimate of costs, which will vary and can be optimized. However given that the input is two specific designs, it is not accurate to suggest that materially cheaper alternatives would/could be the output. One should not expect a $15m solution or a needs analysis to be the output.
This is not necessarily a given, the architects work at the direction of the committee. Can they shave a sufficient amount off? I think that's for the professionals to decide.
## Given the context, I really don’t think it’s reasonable to assume anyone will “shave a sufficient amount off”. I could certainly be wrong, but I can’t imagine going to a service provider with what I think is a $25mm scope of work and being meaningfully surprised to the downside on costs.
5) the vote to proceed requires a 2/3 majority. That means every NO vote is particularly powerful, as it offsets two yes votes.
This is true! So EVERY vote counts, not only because it's a 2/3 majority, but also to make sure your opinion is given...but also so people don't complain later that which ever way it goes was decided by a small number of people. So whether you are for or against, come vote.
## I agree!
I will add here some other 'undisputed' facts (though please fact check me as well...)
A) This will cost the property owners: Property tax WILL increase due to debt service (the cost of the loan to construct the building). Property tax CAN increase due to operating cost. There are staffing costs, operations, and maintenance associated with the building, but some of that is already in the budget to maintain/operate the existing buildings. Estimates for this have not been provided.
## I think it’s more accurate to say property tax WILL increase due to operating costs. We can debate by how much. I have several friends who live in much larger houses that they moved to from smaller houses. Not one of them has said “it’s almost the same price to operate this as my old house!” But many have complained about just how much more it is to live in a big house than they expected….
B) If the vote is a 'no', there are no funds available to determine options for construction of a community center. Doing so would require funds allocated for professional services to develop plans, which would require another vote to allocate those funds.
## A “no” vote would send us back to the drawing board to look at our needs and wants with a fresh set of eyes, since the community will have said “we don’t want to pay to develop plans for something we don’t think we can afford and likely won’t build”
C) The planning committee has interest in building a Community Center on the Hartwell Site. They are going to put forth the best plan they can in order to get the town to build it, which would require ANOTHER 2/3 vote at a later date.
## Agreed. But remember that a “yes” vote sends the message that the town may very well be prepared to build the plans they’re currently proposing. Perhaps it is.
D) A 'Yes' vote would provide the CCBC with the funds to hire professional services needed to bring the project to the next stage. It does not obligate the town to build the Community Center.
## True but it does guarantee we will have $325k less and will delay the return to the drawing board and needs analysis I’m advocating. E*) Folks need to either trust that the CCBC is operating in good faith and assessing the options fairly and being able to separate out 'need' from 'want', or just assume that they never are, in which case you're not trusting them to do anything and you'd vote no regardless.
## I don’t think a “no” vote implies the CCBC is operating in bad faith. Nor does it suggest they are being “unfair.” They are good people trying to do what they think is best for the town! They’ve spent a ton of time doing a buck of work, all of it in good faith. That ring said, I’m not trying to be controversial here, but the CCBC does have an agenda, which is to build a community center which they feel strongly we need. I’m not against the idea of a community center, but I am against spending money we don’t have to build something we may not need without first looking at what else we might need later. |
