Specifically addressing Alex Nichols proposal on how the motion might be amended by including some sort of target price language:
I feel that the motion as written needs clarification in its wording to avoid have issues of ambiguity and lack of clear commitments to what outputs the study would be required to produce. I do not think that trying to address this, in full or in part, by amending the motion to include price targets is the way to go. Until the nitty gritty work of defining and exploring a no-frills option is done, we don't know what cost we might attain for a given new approach. We should not set a target that might set a limit on how hard we work to get the cost down. During the school building project process, early on I tried, unsuccessfully to lobby for a non-mandatory guideline such as:" the School Building Committee should do its best to give us a proposal that does not exceed X." The idea was soundly rejected, with the reasoning "if we did that we won't get to see all that we might be able to get. Let's leave it open, see what comes out and then decide if we want to spend that." OK, well and good. In this case, if we set any target we are closing the door to seeing how LOW we can go in cost. Changing the target to "significantly less" doesn't resolve this for me. I can objectify something like "no frills, only the essentials" (if we do a good job of identifying wants vs needs). I cannot objectify "significantly less." None of us is in a position to speak for anyone else about what level of cost is/is not significant to their personal situation. I am opposed to trying to resolve this via price target mechanisms. Dennis Picker On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 7:01 PM Alex Nichols via Lincoln < [email protected]> wrote: > Chiming in with some thoughts here. > > First, thanks to everyone for all of their work to date as well as for the > spirited yet respectful discussion. > > Given the large numbers floated around so far and the resulting > perceptions around the project, I agree that the motion should explicitly > require exploring at least one lower budget, so-called "no-frills" option. > > One straightforward way to do this could be to set a reasonable soft > budget target for one design and see where it lands. I'm not a lawyer, nor > do I play one on TV, but here is one idea (in bold): > > *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. The consultants retained to provide the above services shall be > instructed to investigate at least one design based around a target budget > of [$15M].* > > Whatever the number is, whether it's $15M or $18M, a range, or even > language giving a mandate to "...explore an option materially less > expensive than those currently proposed," this would make it clear that the > town is serious about exploring a lower cost option. It shows an effort to > design to a budget, rather than budgeting to a design. In any case, if a > design based on a lower budget really isn't an option, we'll all be > guaranteed the chance see that first-hand and decide for ourselves. > > Alex > ------- Original Message ------- > On Tuesday, November 29th, 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. > >
-- 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.
