community center*

If the town borrows $10 million (for example) to build a community center, Lincoln homeowners can expect a property tax increase of $290–$309 per year, or a hike of 1.7–1.8%, according to the Finance Committee.

In a September 18 presentation (14-minute video with slides here; just slides here), FinCom chair Andy Payne outlined what the town can afford to borrow and how various borrowing levels would affect taxes. Current cost estimates for a community center range from $13.73 million to $24.0 million depending on which design option voters approve.

In fiscal 2023, the median tax bill was $17,488 on a median home value of $1,259,900. 

The FinCom figures assume a 30-year fixed bond purchased in early 2025 at an interest rate of 4.0–4.5% (the current municipal rate is 3.94%). Payne noted that some of the debt stabilization fund (currently $5.5 million) could be used to reduce the amount needed to borrow. 

Under the statutory debt limit, the town can borrow up to $40.7 million in addition to its existing debt. By another measure — maximum annual debt service — the borrowing ceiling is about $30 million, he said. Because the annual debt payments (as with fixed-rate home mortgage payments) remain the same for the entire 30-year term of the bond, debt service declines over time as a percentage of the entire town budget, which grows each year due to inflation.

“No one is arguing that we should run up to our debt limit or even close to it — this is just showing the lay of the land,” Payne said.

Other large capital projects on the horizon — though with great uncertainty as to cost and timing — include a road repair project (about $10 million in five to seven years), purchase of more land for the town cemetery (seven figures in about 10 years), a ladder truck for the Fire Department (about $1.5 million in about 10 years), and a new DPW facility in 10-15 years for $15–$20 million.

“This is absolutely the most debated and controversial slide in the entire presentation. There are items on this list that will never happen and other items not on this list that will come into play,” Payne said. “The point is that FinCom and the Capital Planning Committee and town staff are very mindful of the town’s other possible capital needs.”

The Community Center Building Committee will meet on Wednesday, Sept. 27 at 7 p.m. to finalize its presentation at the September 30 State of the Town meeting (Zoom link here).

In the September 14 article headlined “Architects, CCBC refine options for community center,” Option 3 for the community center was incorrectly described and a quote from CCBC member Tim Christenfeld was presented slightly out of context. The article has been corrected and also updated with a new penultimate paragraph describing the upcoming State of the Town meeting.

(Editor’s note: This article was updated on September 17.)

Architects and the Community Center Building Committee this week continued to refine the community center options that residents will see at the State of the Town meeting on September 30, ending Wednesday with three main options plus alternates to two of them.

On September 13, ICON Architects offered refinements of the three options they presented on August 16 that will meet the cost limits voted by the town (up to 100%, 75% and 50% of the $25 million estimate from 2022, or $25 million/$18.75 million/$12.5 million). These latest options replace earlier ones with the same names and are based on discussion at the September 13 meeting and a public forum on September 12, plus more detailed figures from their cost estimators. Each new total includes both construction and a 20% add-on for “soft costs” (design, owner’s project manager, furniture and equipment, etc.) Costs are in 2025 dollars.

Option 1 ($20.01 million + soft costs = $24.01 million)

• Demolish all three pods
• Build a single new building of 19,474 square feet that would include 5,000 square feet exclusively for LEAP, the same as it has now

Option 2 ($15.99 million + soft costs = $19.19 million)

• Demolish pods A and B
• Renovate pod C
• Build either a one-story or two-story community center that’s not attached to pod C. A two-story building would have a more compact footprint and probably some roof overhangs to accommodate enough solar panels. The sizes would be similar (12,672 square feet for two stories or 12,285 for one story) and the price tags would be about the same.

Option 3 ($11.44 million + soft costs = $13.73 million)

• Demolish pod A
• Renovate pod B and add 5,485 square feet of new construction to result in a 10,500-square-foot building that’s roughly half new and half renovated
• Leave pods A and C as they are
  • Alternate #1: Add another 900 square feet to the new building to meet the minimum size recommended by the architects (added cost: $714,000 for a total of $13.2 million).
  • Alternate #2: Include renovation of pod C (added cost: $3.42 million for a total of $15.92 million). If both alternates were accepted, the total cost would be $16.64 million.

In summary, the approximate size of the community center exclusive of LEAP would be:

• 14,470 square feet for Option 1
• 12,285 or 12,672 square feet for Option 2
• 10,500 square feet for Option 3

ICON recommends a community center of at least 13,000 square feet, or 11,400 square feet “at the bare bones end of the spectrum,” said Ned Collier, principal architect. “Just by the numbers, [Option 3] this scheme falls short of our minimal target and does not renovate pod C… and we’ve heard that not renovating LEAP is a show-stopper.”

Renovating all three detached pods without adding more space is also not viable, CCBC member Tim Christenfeld said. “We’ve done really well pushing [the pods] as far as we can for 64 years… The idea that we would bring a proposal to the town for $12 million to move the COA&HS from one suboptimal facility to a different suboptimal facility is just nuts. It’s just pissing the money away if we’re not solving the problems we’re trying to solve.”

There has been some concern in past months about the cost of a much-needed renovation of the LEAP pod and whether it ought to even be considered in the community center construction planning, especially if it’s not physically attached. As one CCBC member said at the September 12 forum, “LEAP is not really our core thing,” but most of those involved assumed that LEAP would be at least renovated regardless of which option is chosen. However, making the LEAP renovation into a separate project would incur additional unnecessary spending for project management, design, and rapidly rising construction costs.

CCBC member Dan Pereira observed that Option 3 plus its alternates “is really another 75% option” in terms of cost. Collier acknowledged that but observed that Option 3 is substantially different from Option 2 in a design sense.

Sara Mattes, a frequent critic of the community center planning process, argued that “the only way it [the measure to design the community center] passed was because it committed to these lower price points. The vote also committed to [the idea that] alternate sites would be fully explored for some activities, and the second piece of the vote has not been fully explored — it’s been summarily dismissed rather than openly discussed.” Studies have shown that Bemis Hall and the Pierce House are not adequate in many ways, and there are ongoing problems with having senior lunches at the First Parish Church. Mattes acknowledged that money would have to be spent to bring Bemis and Pierce up to snuff if a community center isn’t built.

“I feel as if the committee and architects want something more than the 50% option, but I’m worried that the town isn’t going to be very interested in that,” said resident Lynne Smith.

At the State of the Town meeting, each repeating session on the community center will consist of a short presentation, a breakout session, and then a paper survey in which residents can rank their choices (including a “none of the above” option). There will be large drawings of all the options on easels as well as handouts, which will also be available before September 30. 

The Finance Committee will discuss borrowing costs and tax implications as part of its SOTT preparations at its September 18 meeting. “The current estimate is that the median tax bill will increase by approximately $300 per year for every $10 million borrowed,” Town Administrator Tim Higgins said on Thursday.

By Lynne Smith

At the August 16 Community Center Building Committee meeting, ICON Architecture presented options for the proposed community center. These options will be sent to an estimator for refined costs. In this article, I will focus on Option 3, Adaptive Reuse, estimated to cost up to $12.5 million.

As Lincoln has found in the Town Offices building and in parts of the new Lincoln school, “adaptive reuse” can be beautiful and functional as well as sustainable. The problem with the proposed plan is that ICON has tried to turn three separate buildings into one, responding to the committee’s focus on a single new building. But to accommodate the various stakeholders — COA&HS, PRD, LEAP, and school maintenance — in this low-cost option, adaptive reuse of the separate existing pods makes more sense.

The ICON proposal calls for 6,185 square feet of new construction, including a large lobby and about 4,645 square feet of corridors connecting all three buildings. The lobby, labeled Lincoln Community Room, seems to substitute for a requested activity room. In fact, it appears to be a high-ceilinged architectural statement, similar to the commons room at the new school: beautiful but less functional than simpler activity rooms. The connecting corridors are lower cost than the lobby area per square foot but are still a significant expense. This is a creative architectural effort to turn three buildings into a semblance of one.

I think Option 3, the one that many would vote for, needs more work by ICON and the committee. The committee could allow ICON to develop good adaptive reuse designs for each of the separate buildings (the pods) while committee members further investigate the use of existing spaces in the Lincoln School, the Hartwell building, the First Parish’s stone church, Bemis Hall, and the Pierce House.

To free up about 1,500 square feet in the existing buildings and reduce cost, the school maintenance workshop (shown in Pod A) and the kitchen (shown in Pod B) could be housed separately. Maintenance could be placed in the Hartwell Building (an alternative in all design options). The COA could continue to use the kitchen and dining area of stone church for the Friday senior lunches and for preparation of Meals on Wheels.*

Reducing the proposed building size at the Hartwell campus and focusing on adaptive reuse rather than new construction might actually bring the cost below $12.5 million, allowing funds to be delegated for needed work at Bemis Hall (HVAC) and Pierce House (accessible bathroom).

I urge everyone to find a quiet hour to review the design options, especially Option 3, Adaptive Reuse. I hope there will be improvements to this option prior to the State of the Town meeting on September 30.

*Meals on Wheels is a Minuteman Services function requiring a Minuteman employee to chill, heat, and plate 30-50 meals per day for home delivery. The preparation can easily remain in the stone church kitchen, though a new refrigerator is required there. As for the congregant senior Friday lunches, there are rarely more than 30 people seated in the great hall, which can host many more for special functions. I have attended many of these lunches and enjoyed the beauty of this spacious room.

---

“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 lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. 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 August 20 article headlined “Architects zero in on three design options for community center” had several errors:

• The cost estimates given for the three schemes were the target costs (i.e., the maximum as stipulated by the November 2022 Town Meeting vote). The actual cost estimates are  $22.75 million for scheme 1, $18.7 million for scheme 2, and $12.05 million for scheme 3.
• The square footage of scheme 1 was also listed incorrectly; it should have said 20,500 square feet. 
• The description for scheme 1 mistakenly said that locating the maintenance facility in the main Hartwell building would add $850,000 to the cost. In fact it would save $850,000. 

The article has been updated to reflect these corrections.

(Editor’s note: this article was updated on August 22 to reflect corrections in the square footage of scheme 1 and the three estimated projects costs.)

ICON Architecture presented three design options to the Community Center Building Committee on August 16 and will forward them to the company’s cost estimator to get firmer price tags before the State of the Town charette on September 30.

The proposed square footage for programming and layout sketches can be seen on the indicated page numbers of the August 16 slide deck:

1. Option 1, the courtyard scheme – page 17 (current estimate: $22.75 million)

• • Demolish all three pods and build a new 20,500-square-foot, one-story building
  • Total program space: 20,500 square feet
  • Incorporates 1,000 square feet for maintenance area (or relocate to main Hartwell building for a cost savings of $850,000)

2. Option 2, the compact scheme – page 25 (current estimate:$18.7 million)

• • Demolish pods A and B; renovate pod C
  • 13,400 square feet of new construction in a two-story building and 4,965 square feet of renovation for total program space of 18,365 square feet
  • Incorporates 1,000 square feet for either maintenance or activity space (relocate maintenance in main Hartwell building for an additional $300,000)

3. Option 3, the adaptive reuse scheme – page 33 (current estimate:$12.05 million)

• • Renovate pods A and B (9,885 square feet)
  • 6,185 square feet of new construction (connectors between pods all three)
  • Total program space: 16,000 square feet
  • Incorporates 1,000 square feet for either maintenance or activity space (relocate maintenance in main Hartwell building for an additional $300,000)
  • Optional: renovate pod C for an additional $3 million

The comparison table on page 11 shows the variables among the three options that center around programming space, the fate of Pod C (e.g., whether LEAP’s space will be renovated or not) and the level of site development. For example, option 3 (unlike the other two) does not include funds for a pedestrian bridge over the stream to the Brooks parking area and a raised Ballfield Road crosswalk, remediation of the former Strat’s playground to allow for a new playground or other use, or restorative landscaping.

At the State of the Town meeting in September, residents will have the chance to review the options in detail, ask questions, and express opinions. A preferred option with a specific dollar amount will be presented for a vote at a Special Town Meeting in November.

In the July 30 article headlined “My Turn: Schools drive CCBC discussion at July 26 meeting,” a broken link at the end of the paragraph starting with “A low-cost option…” was corrected, and a late-breaking correction was made to the bulleted list of cost options. Also, Alison Taunton-Rigby’s quote (“All three programs…”) was removed from what the editor believes is the logical spot in the piece and moved to the addendum at the end.

As a result of these avoidable errors, all “My Turn” pieces intended for publication on Sundays must be sent to the Lincoln Squirrel in final form by Fridays at 5 p.m. with no further subsequent corrections.

 

Editor’s note: this article was updated on July 31 at the author’s request to correct a link at the end of the paragraph starting with “A low-cost option…” and make a late-breaking correction to the bulleted list of cost options. Alison Taunton-Rigby’s quote (“All three programs…”) was also moved from what the editor believes is the logical spot in the piece to the addendum at the end.

By Lynne Smith

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 projects: 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. 

After the site plan discussions, Taunton-Rigby showed a benchmark analysis 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.)

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 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 lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. 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.