Hi Andy - I appreciate this perspective. I placed some responses amongst yours, preceded by the ## sign.
> On Jun 4, 2025, at 6:03 PM, Andrew Payne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > David C. wrote: >> “cutting $2.3M out of the project would require a complete redesign >> (estimated cost $1.5M to $2.0M)” >> >> This stretches the bounds of plausibility. Anyone familiar with construction >> projects knows that cost-cutting trade-offs are often necessary, and rarely >> do they require paying full architectural fees all over again. >> > There's not a smooth linear slider where we can just "uncheck boxes" and > costs come down. > > Sometimes, you can't materially reduce scope or cut costs without triggering > a redesign. ## I think this is the point though. Maybe we need to reduce the scope materially and revisit the project. > For example, if you need to materially reduce costs, ## Apparently we do, right? Unless taxpayers are willing to fund this overage with our reserves. > that may trigger a footprint reduction, which may trigger a room reduction, > which triggers a layout change, which triggers a roof change, etc. ## I don’t understand why this is being presented as problematic. It sounds like fiscal prudence to me. > If it's already highly constrained (as this project is), ## This statement is what I find a little surprising. I would ask folks to consider - if the most expensive community center ever constructed in Eastern Massachusetts is “highly constrained” perhaps the scope is way too ambitious? That’s a question for the taxpayers and one they may wish to revisit. > you may need to look at a couple of conceptual designs before committing to a > new redesign, review with all the stakeholders, renegotiate tradeoffs, etc. > And, because of the municipal process, we need to generate a new full set of > design documents so that bidders have enough detail to submit new bids. ## But imagine a world where we reduced the scope and designed a more cost-effective solution that was actually responsive to critical needs, as opposed to the aspirational project currently proposed that may no longer have the town’s support? We could spend less money, not drain our reserves, and even have some money left over to pay for the other capital needs that are inevitable in the next decade. This sounds appealing to me. I personally am not scared of “writing off” some design work - I’m much more scared of spending $30m on something we don’t need. > > The CCBC-provided redesign cost estimate may be "conservative", but it's not > surprising if it's close to a design-from-scratch cost since a redesign means > going back to nearly the > >> “and a delayed timeline, resulting in further escalated costs ($1.5M to >> $2.0M)” >> >> Have they never heard of the time value of money? I’d rather see my taxes >> levied two years from now than today. Delaying the project means capital >> remains available for more productive uses. Even if the funds are already >> allocated, they would be earning interest—likely 4–5%. Any escalation >> estimate should be offset by that. Moreover, our record for predicting >> escalation is weak at best. We should avoid baseless speculation. >> > To clarify: the majority of funds (~$16m) would be bonded, and that would > happen after we are "go flight!" with an accepted bid, etc. At that point, > we're paying interest on those funds and MA anti-arbitrage laws prevent us > from earning more interest/return than we're paying on float. Generally, if > bonding is involved, we can't arbitrage away cost escalations in any > meaningful way. ## I’m not sure that’s Cuetos’ main point. He doesn’t want to arbitrage our bond rating to generate float. His point is it’s HIS money the town is spending, and there’s opportunity cost. He would rather have it and use it productively rather than have the town take it and waste it. If you are going to tax him (and me) he wants it used on something we need. This isn’t the last thing we are going to need to spend money on… we may not want to pretend it is, Seems reasonable. > > Do residents prefer to pay escalated costs in ~2 years vs current costs, as > you suggest? Maybe; I'd be very surprised. That's why we vote. ## And this is the crux of his argument above. Why the fear about “escalated costs”? What if we spend half as much on the project, and we spent more money designing that solution. And it cost more to build in two years. I view that as a massive win, not a loss because of “cost escalation” The CCBC has said “we can’t deliver what you voted for within the budget constraints”. Sounds to me like either people vote to pay more, or vote to go back to the drawing board. I’m in favor the drawing board. One we-don’t-need-a-thousand-square-feet-for-a-piano resident’s view, :-) Seth > > One if-you-think-community-centers-are-expensive-try-two-weddings resident's > view, > > -andy > -- > 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.
