On November 30, 2022 voters authorized spending $325,000 to develop proposals for a community center at several cost points. The text of the final approved motion as amended can be found here:
Town-Clerk-Certificate---Sealed (lincolntown.org) <http://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/78684/Town-Clerk-Certificate---Sealed> During the CCBC's presentation at this meeting, they said that they wanted to develop 3 options to present at a special town meeting in fall, 2023, for a vote to select the preferred option. They referred to the options as “low, medium and high” in their presentation. They stated that the “high option” would be based on the 2018 design proposals but with cost reductions. The 2018 design proposals were said to have an estimated cost of $25 million. During discussion, the CCBC stated that it would not put forth a $25 million proposal as one of the three choices next fall. This was expressed explicitly multiple times by the Chair of the CCBC. The clear message was that a $25 million proposal is off the table. Subsequent discussion resulted in a proposed amendment to the original motion, which was edited and finally adopted. Nothing in the discussion leading to the acceptance of the amendment, and then the final vote reversed the previous commitment to abandoning a $25 million proposal. In fact, in one of the last comments made leading up to the vote on the amendment, a member of the CCBC stated that the CCBC has already said it would not pursue a $25 million option. The net result of the motion that was passed at Special Town meeting, coupled with the presentation and commentary offered by the CCBC at the meeting, is: -There will be 3 options offered at the fall, 2023 Special Town Meeting for a vote on a preferred option -The CCBC is required, per the motion, to provide an option that is estimated to cost no more than $12.5 million (the 50% point) and another option that is estimated to cost no more than $18.75 million (the 75% point). -The CCBC has the latitude to provide a third option (the so-called “high option”), but that option was pledged by CCBC to represent a reduction in price from $25 million. The motion allows for this option but does not require it. *(the approved motion also dealt with considerations about potential location of some programs at sites other than Hartwell- but I am not dealing with that dimension in this note).* *(In an Appendix, I have provided transcripts of actual statements made at the Special Town Meeting, in the order in which they were made, along with a bit of context. These transcripts were made from the video recording of the Special Town Meeting).* At the March 8, 2023 meeting of the CCBC I became concerned about what options were being pursued by the architectural firm (ICON) that has been hired. My concern stemmed from multiple statements made by both Ned Collier, the lead architect, and Sarah Chester, the CCBC chair. Each of them referred to developing 3 options at 50%, 75%, and 100%. It appeared to me that by referencing 100%, they were re-inserting a $25 million option, contrary to what was promised at the Special Town Meeting. In addition, they never referred to these options as “not to exceed 50%, etc.” Perhaps this is just imprecise impromptu language, but I want to make sure that the underlying development of options to put before the voters is entirely consistent with what transacted at the Special Town Meeting. *(Again, in the Appendix, I have provided transcripts of actual statements made at the 3/8/23 meeting, taken from the video recording of that meeting).* Given what I heard at the 3/8/23 meeting, I decided to check what the Request for Quotes document and the contract with ICON had to say about the options. In my “appendix section” I provide key text from those documents. My conclusion after reading them is that they are ambiguous regarding whether or not an option will be developed that is at the $25 million point. Again, the ambiguity may be innocent, but I am watching carefully, given what appeared to be Mr. Collier's understanding at the 3/8 meeting. At its 3/22/23 meeting, the CCBC indicated that there are three upcoming events scheduled to collect important public input to help guide the development of options. **4/5/23 A CCBC meeting at 7PM that is focused on providing direct input to the architect and the CCBC from the public and from interested community groups in Lincoln **4/12/23- The CCBC will issue a survey to help gauge what basic values are the most important to the community regarding a community center **4/25/23- A public forum to explore program analysis work done to date, review the results of the values survey , discuss and provide public feedback The dates and details of these events may change, so please check the town website's page showing dates and agendas of public meetings: Agenda Center • Lincoln, MA • CivicEngage (lincolntown.org) <https://www.lincolntown.org/AgendaCenter> In addition, the CCBC has a website that gives updates on its work and posts some documents. You can sign up at that website to be on an email list that the CCBC will use to send out information. www.Lincolncommunitycenter.com <http://www.lincolncommunitycenter.com/> I urge anyone interested in the community center project to participate in all three of these efforts by the CCBC to obtain feedback. If you care about seeing that wants are appropriately categorized separately from needs, if you care that the amount of new/renovated space at Hartwell is minimized by offering some programs/services at existing sites in town instead of replicating those spaces, if you want to see a true “no frills” option-- then it is important that your voice be heard. Dennis Picker *APPENDIX WITH THE DETAILS* Here are specifics from the Special Town Meeting, the 3/8/23 CCBC meeting and the RFQ and Contract documents *****11/30/22 SPECIAL TOWN MEETING* The video recording of the entire meeting can be found here: Lincoln TV (castus.tv) <https://cloud.castus.tv/vod/lincoln/video/638ba01e384b5e00081dfc10?page=HOME> Summary of some statements, transcript of key statements: 30:54 Sarah Chester talks about lower cost options. Slide on screen says multiple lower cost options and scaling back the two 2018 designs 58:50 Jonathan Dwyer starts talking about CCBC tasks First slide says they will update program needs and wants and will develop multiple low cost options 1:01:09- Jonathan Dwyer introduces concept of low, medium and high price options 1:01:30-- Jonathan Dwyer states what the low cost option will probably entail- update the pods plus 1:01:50- Jonathan Dwyer states what the medium option will entail- essential program needs 1:02:00 Jonathan Dwyer describes the high cost option, which will be scaled back from 2018 to meet needs plus some of the wants 1:02:30 Jonathan Dwyer says multiple community input meetings will be held at regular intervals, “so that all can see and participate in the development of the cost alternatives” 1:02:58 Jonathan Dwyer: “you will be helping us determine the number [of options] and the price points” 1:23:37- Jonathan Dwyer describes timeline for the series of votes leading to project authorization at Spring 2024 Town Meeting 1:26:10- Tim Higgins talks to a slide that explains what the $325,000 will be spent on. First line says architect fee is to develop lower cost option and refine existing design concept 3:15:00 Sarah Chester , CCBC Chair: “we recognize that the $25 million is far too much” 3:15:27 Sarah Chester re: 2018 high cost options “we have pledged to pair down” 3:15:34 Sarah Chester “none of us want to pay $25 Million on a building” 3:16:20 Sarah Chester “we are not asking for the beautiful $25 million dollar plans” 3:17:15 Ross Tucker, a resident, presents his amendment 3:18:10 his version of the amendment at this point has options “at 50, 75 and 100%, including an option at $15 million” Note there is no “not to exceed” language 3:21:10 Mark Deck , a resident, speaks as a co-author of the amendment to state that the intent of the amendment is to allow parts of the community center to be located at other locations, but not consider moving the whole community center from Hartwell 3:26:08 Paul Blanchfield, speaking for the finance committee, said that Fincom would have some concerns that the amendment calls for 4 options and that the $325,000 budget was not sufficient to develop that many options. He said that the 325,00 was intended to cover 2 specific proposals and we are now considering adding 3 very different proposals. 3:26:30 Mr. Blanchfield suggested that if the Tucker amendment moves forward that we also consider another amendment to increase the $325,000 3:27:00 Mr. Blanchfield was asked what amount would cover the listed options. He said that the $325,000 was sufficient to cover two options (not three). Note that the original discussion of the $325,00 budget by CCBC was that a new “low and medium” option would be developed and detailed by the architect to the same level of cost estimate as the 2018 option, which would be the basis of the so-called “high” option. 3:28:50 Mr. Blanchfield clarified, after discussion with selects and CCBC that $325,000 could cover development of 50, 75, and 100% options. Note that this came after Ms.Chester had repeatedly said that $25 million option was off the table. 3:30:18 the amendment as it currently stands is now displayed on the screen 3:30:30 Mr. Tucker calls out “is everyone ok with pinning it to the numbers,...” Changes are then made on the screen. It is not clear who “everyone” was. Yikes! 3:31:00 a revised amendment is now on the screen, adding the words “approximately” to the cost targets 3:32:01 another revision is now on the screen 3:32:48 A resident suggests replacing “approximately” with “not to exceed” 3:33:36 A revision has been made by Mr. Tucker and is now on the screen. It replaces “approximately” with “not to exceed.” 3:36:50 Mr. Hutchison, select, clarifies that the language means that a new building would be located at Hartwell, but that some functions might be located at other sites 3:38:18 Alison Taunton-Rigby speaking from the floor as a member of the CCBC says “the CCBC has already concluded that the 100% option is not going to be fully developed. We think is it too expensive.” 3:38:28: Alison Taunton-Rigby said “I suggest that we take the words 100% out of this statement because as Sarah (Chester, CCBC chair) said, we already said we are not going to plan something like that” Mr. Tucker then speaks, and disagrees with Ms. Taunton-Rigby's suggestion and says that the 100% should remain. Sarah Chester and other members of the CCBC are silent. 3:40:51 Mr. Tucker says “we removed the 100% option but they may still present it.” This is completely confusing, as the words on the screen have not changed- 100% option is still up there. 3:42:43- Jonathan Dwyer makes a statement about the options. He gives as examples that the community will see options at 50,75, maybe 80%. He does not mention 100% as an example. He says “we have heard you.” 3:44:13 Steve Tanner?, a resident, says “no one up here for the last 2 hours has ever mentioned the $25M. We're clearly going to get the most cost effective thing.” 3:47:56-- The final amendment is on the screen. The 100% wording is no longer present. Not sure when it disappeared, since at 3:39:xx Mr. Tucker seems to dismiss the suggestion by Alison Taunton-Rigby to remove it. After that, the amendment was passed by a 62% to 38% majority, and then the amended motion was passed by a 2/3 majority. *******MARCH 8, 2023 CCBC MEETING* The video recording of this meeting can be found here: Lincoln TV (castus.tv) <https://cloud.castus.tv/vod/lincoln/video/64123b6a17e58200082a7b47?page=HOME> 12:21 Ned Collier, Lead architect from ICON: "the committee has advanced their own thinking-- the 100%, 50%, 75%" 22:05 Ned Collier again mentions "100%" 33:02 Jonathan Dwyer "the longer this project goes on the more expensive it will be and we are locked in with the 50%, 75%, 100%" 33:56 Jonathan Dwyer "we really need to hit the ground running in September with community engagement about some specific 50%, 75%, 100% proposals" 39:16 Ned Collier again mentions 50,75 and 100% 1:27:48 Ned Collier again referenced 50,75, 100 ******From the project description section of the Request for Quotes issued to architecture firms:* “Developing a range of cost options, with the two designs from the 2018 PPDC representing the highest costs. Consistent with the November 30, 2022, Special Town Meeting vote, one of the lower-cost options must be no greater than fifty percent (50%) of the 2018 project options, and another must be no greater than seventy-five percent (75%) of the 2018 project options. Ultimately, this work will all be in service of developing building design options, site plans, and cost estimates that are responsive to the minimum of three cost options required: (1) no greater than fifty percent (50%) of the 2018 project options, (2) no greater than seventy-five percent (75%) of the 2018 project options, and (3) a refreshed look at the 2018 building designs, which represent the one-hundred percent (100%) cost option.” ********From the proposed contract which the town issued to ICON, in the scope of services section:* “Develop at least two additional conceptual building layouts and design plans that represent various reductions in program scope. This should include at least one that is no greater than fifty percent (50%) of the 2018 options, and one that is no greater than seventy-five percent (75%) of the 2018 options.”
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
