Thanks for this analysis, Dennis. An excellent reminder of the price points and how we understood them in November.
Lynne Smith 5 Tabor Hill Road Lincoln, MA 01773 cell: 781-258-1175 [email protected] > On Mar 28, 2023, at 3:47 PM, Dennis Picker <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
-- 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.
