All, After listening to the entire discussion/debate last PM, I see what might be seen as an issue in the motion.
In last night’s debate, at the end of the meeting, as the Selects were voting on actual language for the motion, the question was- is the designation of “Hartwell” to be left OUT of the motion, as voted on by the CCBC, or do we insert “Hartwell” into the motion. The Selects elected to do the later. I believe the rational was that if it were left out, it would be seen as “bait and switch." However, the current language will need some clarification Without clarifying wording in the motion (not simply spoken to, on the floor) some might interpret the language of the motion to mean ALL programming must occur at the Hartwell campus, thus restricting creative, less expensive alternatives. There is a possibility to deliver some programming OFF the Hartwell campus, as we do now, and still have the core of a CC remain at Hartwell. This could well lead to a less costly design. And, perhaps the motion needs to be amended to require a “ no frills” option. If such clarification and an amendment does not occur, we might have an issue. We need to listen and hope that we find a clear path to “yes.” Sara ------ Sara Mattes > On Nov 29, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Andy Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Karla, > > This is the text of the Motion > (https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/78665/Motion---Final): > > Motion Under Article 1: > That the Town vote to transfer the sum of $325,000 from the Town’s > Stabilization Fund for the purpose of hiring relevant consultant support > services, to potentially include project management, design, engineering and > other technical reviews to assist the Community Center Building Committee in > developing a range of Community Center design choices and budgets for the > Hartwell Complex, with the intention of presenting said choices at a fall, > 2023 Special Town Meeting for a vote on a preferred option; and provided > further, that it is anticipated that the preferred option selected by the > Town will be presented for a funding vote in March of 2024. > > That's it, that's the whole thing. There is nothing in there that actually > dictates 2 proposals, or the cost of any of the proposals, or the level of > 'frills' or 'features' that are included / excluded either. They can develop > a 'range of design choices and budgets'. I'm not sure how one would define a > 'low-cost alternative' in the context of the motion, though maybe someone > smarter than I could. None of the things you are suggesting are precluded > from being done in the motion, though the CCBC is not obligated to either, > except for the fact that they have to come back in another meeting next year > and again a year after that to actually get the funds bonded. In my opinion, > that is the real motivation to internalize the feedback. > > - Andy > > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 2:31 PM Karla Gravis <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> I 100% agree with what others have said in that we need specificity in the >> motion. >> >> The motion needs to clearly lay out that at least one of the desired >> outcomes is the no-frills option (without the features that are currently >> part of the $25M proposal that were mentioned yesterday by the CCBC like a >> teaching kitchen or an indoor/outdoor cafe, etc). >> >> I fear that if that if this is not explicit in the motion, we will get one >> $25M option and maybe a $20M option and then be presented with a false >> choice under pressure from “we need to get this done before inflation hits >> us again”. >> >> I think what you said Dennis is critical and on point and should be included >> in the motion: the low-cost alternative NEEDS to be developed to “the level >> where it can be considered on an equal footing with the two existing >> proposals when it comes time for the town to vote and chose a preferred >> approach.” >> >> I also want to call out that options outside of Hartwell should be given a >> chance. The 8-year old SOTT exercise where 150 folks where given 2 dots each >> to choose should not be used as the “will of the town”. >> >> Thanks all for listening to me! >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 2:05 PM Dennis Picker <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Andy (and all the rest of you!), >>> I feel we might be getting close. (what a relief it is to be able to write >>> that) >>> >>> Given what I now know, having attended last night's select meeting, I agree >>> that we need to spend study money in order to get another option, what I >>> call the no-frills approach, on the table. That money will flesh out a >>> newly conceived option that is no-frills, addresses the essential needs, is >>> Hartwell-centric, focused on new construction/renovation at Hartwell, and >>> flexibly addresses the location of some services at other locations when >>> that makes sense. The study would allow this new alternative to be >>> developed to the level where it can be considered on an equal footing with >>> the two existing proposals when it comes time for the town to vote and >>> chose a preferred approach. >>> >>> I sincerely believe that such a no-frills version would still be worthy of >>> the label "integrated community center." >>> >>> In that sense I would like to vote yes as a path forward. But I am not >>> there yet. The devil is in the details of the wording of the warrant >>> article and what gets presented by the CCBC tomorrow regarding how they >>> intend to proceed if the $325,000 funding is approved. The clarity and >>> specifics about what the warrant explicitly requires as output of the study >>> is of vital concern to me. >>> >>> I am aware that it may take an amendment from the floor to constructively >>> sort this out. I am waiting to see what plays out tomorrow. I hope that >>> the collective "we" can sort enough of this out through this type of dialog >>> to avoid chaos and confusion tomorrow night if it comes to amendments. >>> Fingers crossed. >>> >>> Dennis Picker >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:30 PM Andy Wang <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <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.
