Below is my article as it appeared today in the Lincoln Squirrel.
My Turn: Schools drive CCBC discussion at July 26 meeting
<https://lincolnsquirrel.com/2023/07/my-turn-schools-drive-ccbc-discussion-at-july-26-meeting/>
July 30, 2023
By Lynne Smith
<https://lincolnsquirrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/myturn-sm-feb2021.jpg>
At the July 26 CCBC meeting, Susan Taylor, the School Committee’s liaison to
the Community Center Building Committee, raised concerns about trading off the
needs of existing programs on the Hartwell campus to accommodate the latest
community center options. The issue of access to and renovation of the LEAP
building (Pod C), the maintenance workshop, and the area behind Magic Garden
(the former “Strat’s Place” playground) fueled a discussion that could
complicate plans for the community center.
The community center was proposed to provide better facilities for the Council
on Aging and Human Services and the Parks and Recreation Department. The
decision to locate the project on the Hartwell campus, of necessity,
incorporated the existing school stakeholders. Adding school needs will
escalate the cost significantly. At the meeting, it seemed we were discussing a
continuation of the school project, not the community center. Much time and
energy were expended in debating how the plan could accommodate all needs.
Taylor noted that school parent voters were likely to be a significant voting
bloc.
After much back-and-forth discussion regarding the school needs and how they
might be met, CCBC member Alison Taunton-Rigby suggested that the committee
should consider thinking about three programs: one is the community center
housing COA/HS and PRD, one is LEAP and its needs, and one is the school’s
maintenance workshop.
In my opinion, this idea has real merit. It might mean allocating funds
differently — deferring the renovation of LEAP, the maintenance workshop, and
Strat’s Place to future capital budgets.
ICON did not give cost estimates but presented site plans for three levels:
three options for up to 100% of the most recent $30 million cost estimate
four options for up to 75%
one option for up to 50%
A low-cost option is the one that I think will pass a town vote, but it needs
more work. I was disappointed that the 50% option shown at the prior meeting on
June 28, which included new construction on the site of Pod A and renovation of
Pod B, was not developed for this session. The site plans from both the June
28 and July 26 meetings are available here
<https://lincolncommunitycenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-07-26-CCBC-Public-Presentation.pdf>.
After the site plan discussions, Taunton-Rigby showed a benchmark analysis
<https://lincolncommunitycenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Community-Center-Benchmarking-Data-7.26.2023.pdf>
of community centers in neighboring towns. She also requested a “working
group” meeting to go over in detail the programmatic spreadsheet. The
spreadsheet is the key to the architect’s understanding of the building needs,
but it has not received a full review by the committee. The committee plans to
schedule one or more working groups to hash out the program space requirements.
(For more detail on program requirements, see my July 3 Lincoln Squirrel piece
<https://lincolnsquirrel.com/2023/07/my-turn-ccbc-offers-revised-site-plans-but-no-cost-estimates/>.)
ICON is doing a good job at trying to manage a project whose needs keep
changing. The CCBC is doing a good job airing all concerns. At some point,
though, some tough calls will need to be made to arrive at designs that will
pass a town vote.
I urge all residents to continue to follow developments on the
lincolncommunitycenter.com <http://lincolncommunitycenter.com/>website. There
will be one more public meeting with ICON on August 16. That will give more
direction for the presentation at the State of the Town meeting on September 30
where cost estimates will be presented.
Editor’s note: Susan Taylor and Alison Taunton-Rigby asked to include the
following at the end of Smith’s piece:
“The decision to design this project for the Ballfield Road campus impacts our
schools in many ways — most important is the safety of our children and also
support of the essential education programs and services that already operate
in the design space. There will be tradeoffs as we consider design options at
different price points. I want to be sure the needs of [the Lincoln Public
Schools], LEAP, and Magic Garden are key in our decision-making at each cost
level,” Taylor said.
“All three programs — the community center, LEAP, and the maintenance workshop
— have different needs and solutions but are part of the overall project,”
Taunton-Rigby said.
“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views
on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed
with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. Items
will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at
the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors
of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.
--
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.
