community center*

In the September 28 story headlined “Community center options readied for SOTT,” the image gallery at the bottom has been updated to include the newest versions supplied by ICON Architects.

A summary of the latest community center options. Click image to enlarge.

(Editor’s note: the image gallery at the bottom of this post was updated on September 29.)

After some final tweaks this week, the community center design options are ready for prime time at Saturday’s State of the Town meeting. Meanwhile, some residents are embarking on a fund-raising effort to defray some of the cost.

As before, there are three main options pegged at 100%, 75%, and 50% of the $25 million estimate for the 2018 concept. There are one-story and two-story versions of Option 2 (2a and 2b) with almost equivalent square footage and price tags.

Option C, unlike the other two, does not include renovating pod C for LEAP — and some members of the Community Center Building Committee remarked at their September 27 meeting that this is something of a false choice. Pod C definitely needs work and it would make more sense to do it along with the rest of the project rather than put it off and have costs escalate even further — not to mention construction disruption around the new community center, CCBC chair Sarah Chester said.

Adding the $3.4 million cost of renovating pod C would bring Option 3 from $12.5 million to $15.99 million — still less than Options 2a and 2b ($18.75 million and $18.72 million respectively). However, that 50% option would result in a community center smaller than the 13,000 square foot minimum recommended.

CCBC member Dilla Tingley said she would advise SOTT attendees that “if you want that option plus LEAP [renovation], please look at the 75% options because they’re a better solution” from a design perspective.

An earlier issue of whether or how to include space for the school maintenance functions now in pod A has been settled, as the schools have agreed to locate that facility in the lower level of the main Hartwell building. However, there will be some as-yet-unknown cost for the move, since it’s no longer part of the community center project budget.

SOTT attendees will see the design options on large posters and have the opportunity to express a preference on a paper form or later online. Forms and a dropbox will also be available at Town Hall for those who can’t attend SOTT or want to complete the form after more time for thought.

“We are starting to approach individuals who we think are supportive of the community center and have the ability to make significant contributions,” said Peter von Mertens, a member of the fundraising group. “We have a challenge grant of $1 million from the Friends of the Lincoln Council on Aging. We plan to meet that by getting several major donations and also raise funds through naming opportunities for spaces in the community center building such as the lobby/lounge, multipurpose room, and the exercise and fitness area. As the project gets more specific in its design we can get more specific with naming opportunities.”

The group has approached one foundation for financing the kitchen area, “and we plan to reach out to several others,” he added. “We have a pledge form that allows people to make a gift that will only be given after the town votes to have the project go forward.”

Below are some screenshots from the September 27 presentation by ICON architects. Complete information will be available on posters and handouts at Saturday’s State of the Town meeting.

Click on the images below to see larger versions with captions.

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.