Why should the options be limited in any manner simply to the Hartwell Complex? That predisposes a course of action that may no longer be the most cost effective OR effective for the town.
Personally, I'm much more interested in the concept of a more limited community center building within the heart of Lincoln Station. I don't believe the same design choices need to be made that made the previous proposal unteneable. Perhaps that implies a retrofit of some pods for Parks and Rec and COA at Lincoln Station and/or other locations. bob On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 7:08 PM Sara Mattes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > 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]> >> 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]> 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]> >>>> 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]. >>>>> 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.
