Andy,
I urge you to read the motion that was voted last PM.
There was much back and forth.

It is a bit tighter than the warrant we all have read.
Perhaps the motion needs an amendment to allow even more flexibility?
Sara


------
Sara Mattes




> On Nov 29, 2022, at 1:30 PM, Andy Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> I agree that you are not distorting the sentiment of the statement I posted 
> before.  
> 
> However, I think you're probably more correct to question this statement:  
> "However, if you are in favor of a combined community center on the Hartwell 
> campus, but are concerned about the cost, then I would encourage people to 
> support the vote with a YES on Wednesday because this is the only way that 
> the project can move forward and further define what the costs will be (and 
> potential cost savings...and to be fair, possible cost increases) and overall 
> impact.  And whatever comes out, the town will be back to vote on THAT plan 
> with, hopefully, more information."
> 
> I will correct myself in saying that I should have said 'but are concerned 
> about cost and/or scope' and not just the cost.  I still believe, that 
> without the funding, some of that reduction in scope can't happen without 
> professional services to back them up. Some outreach could be done, but the 
> real impact to the building and spaces can't really be determined without 
> services. 
> 
> I've personally gone back and forth about supporting an amendment to put more 
> explicit language in the warrant, but given the way it is written, it does 
> not seem to fit in.  The language is intentionally broad to give the 
> committee some latitude in this next phase.  I believe this puts more trust 
> in the CCBC to look into some of the things you are suggesting in looking for 
> some things that might be elsewhere, but given that I'm not going to do that 
> work, I'll have to rely on the output of others.  I always come back to the 
> belief that the committee would like to build a community center, and they 
> are going to come to terms with the fact that they are going to have to put 
> forward a plan they think will pass a 2/3 vote to bond.  This vote should not 
> be the hard vote, the next ones (pick proposal & bond) are.
> 
> - Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:01 PM Dennis Picker <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> I want to call attention to this outside of the torrent of posts on the main 
>> Community Center thread.
>> 
>> Andy Wang said, in part (I don't think that my excerpting distorts his 
>> meaning):
>> 
>> "Now, if you (the royal you, not you specifically, Adam) don't think that 
>> there should be a combined community center at Hartwell at all, and I know 
>> there are several of folks who don't, then you should vote NO, since I don't 
>> think the committee intends to go way back 10+ years to re-hash all those 
>> decisions."
>> 
>> There is a crucial nuance here.   Let's try to not get tangled up in 
>> misunderstandings and confusion about what each of us thinks a "combined 
>> community center" means when we vote.
>> 
>> I support pursuing new construction to meet rec and coa needs at Hartwell 
>> with the explicit caveat that this study, if approved, produces a new option 
>> (to consider when it comes time to vote on a preferred choice) that is no 
>> frills, focused on the essentials and that takes advantage of any favorable 
>> opportunities to provide _some_ of the services at other sites in town.  
>> Even if some of the services are not at the Hartwell site, it would still be 
>> a "combined community center."
>> 
>> From the discussion at the Select Board meeting last night, I believe that 
>> something along the lines of what I said in the previous paragraph is what 
>> the Community Center Building Committee intends to do.  I eagerly await 
>> seeing exactly what is presented tomorrow.
>> 
>> If we incorporate the work to flesh out and cost estimate a version that has 
>> "center of gravity and new construction at Hartwell, but some things might 
>> be elsewhere" that is NOT re-hashing 10 years of work and decisions.  It is 
>> finally completing important work that I wish we had done earlier in this 
>> saga.
>> 
>> Dennis Picker
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to [email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>.
>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
>> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at 
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>> 
> -- 
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to [email protected].
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
> Change your subscription settings at 
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
> 

-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [email protected].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply via email to