(Editor’s note: This article was amended on March 10 to clarify that the Select Board did not explicitly endorse Article 3 even as it supported compliance with the Housing Choice Act.)
The Select Board has endorsed both the community center project but took a more nuanced approach in its stand on a Housing Choice Act-compliant zoning district — measures that will be debated and voted on at the start of Town Meeting on March 23.
In a statement at their March 4 meeting, the board noted the previously cited justifications for a community center, including the deteriorating condition of the Hartwell pods for the Parks and Recreation Department and the inadequacies of Bemis Hall for the Council on Aging & Human Services, adding that renovating all of them would cost about $14.4 million compared to $24 million for new construction. ICON Architects estimates that construction costs will continue to rise by about 7% a year for the next several years, they added.
Operating costs for a new building have yet to be determined, though the Community Center Building Committee outlined the cost drivers in a March 6 statement. A grant from the Ogden Codman Trust as well as funds contributed and raised by the Friends of the Council on Aging will offset at least $1.5 million of the cost.
The CCBC will hold a forum on the final design concept and cost estimates on Wednesday, March 13 at 7 p.m. The agenda contains the Zoom link.
Housing Choice Act
At the same March 4 meeting, the Select Board also declared support for “the adoption of a Housing Choice Act-compliant zoning district” without specifically supporting Article 3, which asks voters to approve the amended zoning bylaw drawn up by the Planning Board and HCAWG.
Though there’s general agreement that the town should comply with the state law, there has been a great deal of controversy about exactly how to do so. In a second statement on March 4, the Selects said the process “gave residents voice and choice and allowed them to shape the direction and substance of the zoning bylaw.” But members of Lincoln Residents of Housing Alternatives have said that their alternative was not given equal time at the Special Town Meeting on December, when Option C was chosen. Opponents want residents to vote down the bylaw that’s based on that option, which would concentrate all new multifamily housing in South Lincoln, and draw up a different amendment that would allow multifamily housing in other parts of town as well.
The Selects allowed for the possibility of a “no” vote. If the HCA measure isn’t passed by voters, “the Select Board is committed to bringing all interested residents together to forge a compromise to be voted on at a Special Town Meeting before the end of the year,” their statement says.
The stance echoed that of Planning Board Chair Margaret Olson. “If the town has changed its mind, the town will tell us no by voting no. I don’t think any of us should be upset by that prospect. If it’s not approved, that’s OK — that’s part of the process,” she said at the board’s February 20 public hearing on the bylaw.
The town originally scheduled the Town Meeting vote for this month to allow time for the state to vet the amended bylaw for HCA compliance and for the town to make any necessary adjustments before the December 2024 deadline. If voters delay approval until fall, the state presumably won’t have time to review and give its final thumbs-up before the clock runs out, but they haven’t said whether they might be flexible about the deadline if they aren’t able to sign off in time.
In the March 4 discussion, Select Board member Kim Bodnar emphasized the “magnitude of what we’re asking of residents… It really matters to the town we are and the town we might become. This has required the town to think about about who they are, questioning their values. It’s been very tough.”
We are not being presented with the true ongoing yearly cost of the Community Center. The CCBC gave some “drivers” but they should be quantified:
– The new community center will be over 40% bigger than the current Pod structures AND will be used considerably more (open for 80 hours a week) so (as confirmed by the CCBC) we expect more electricity needed for heating, cooling and conditioning. Select Hutchinson confirmed at Monday’s Select Board meeting that, while the new school is more energy efficient than the old one, this does not translate into a lower electricity bill. Even when the panels are finally operative (timeline is unclear at this point), the utilities bill for the school is expected to be higher than it was before the construction. Given that there will be a significant number increase in size and usage for the CC, utility expenditures will be materially higher going forward. It is incumbent upon the CCBC to inform us of the expected magnitude of the increase.
– The CCBC confirms below that we will need more custodian/maintenance support due to the increased size and usage. An extra custodian or two would run us ~$75K – $150K per year.
– It’s unclear to me how we would not incur additional insurance cost for a brand new $25M building and due to increased traffic on the school campus.
Putting these items together, it is naïve to think we will not incur
considerable additional costs (probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars) on a yearly basis to run the community
center. We should get an estimated actual number.
Let’s remember these operational costs would be on top of the equivalent of ~6 years of “saved” taxes ($6.75M from our reserves) plus ~$500 in yearly additional taxes for 30 years (for the median value house) that taxpayers would be contributing to the CC.
Why are the Selects endorsing the community center when we don’t understand the full costs yet?