The Lincoln Squirrel

News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

community center*

My Turn: Concerns at community center forum are deeply flawed

By Bob Apsler

I urge the Community Center Building Committee not to be swayed by the dominant concerns expressed at the April 4 open mic meeting. Those concerns are (1) a desire for a community center within walking distance of a revitalized commercial center, (2) a request for a distributed services model of programs utilizing spaces throughout Lincoln, and (3) a plea for minimizing costs of a community center.

Before dealing with each concern, I must highlight [Assistant Town Administrator] Dan Pereira’s response to the general issue of representativeness of views about the community center. Decisions in Lincoln are made by residents who choose to be informed and vote. There will always be disagreements, and there will always be vocal dissent, such as we heard during the meeting. The decision to build a community center and to locate it on the Ballfield Road campus evolved over many years through participation of hundreds of residents during numerous meetings. Those decisions were not arbitrary but followed extensive data gathering, data analysis, and discussion. Do not be misled by those insisting on disregarding those decisions.

Desire for a community center within walking distance of a revitalized commercial center

Two myths undergird this desire.

First, the Lincoln Mall, like malls across the country, struggles and exists despite dire financial prospects. Vacancies abound at malls as they search for repurposing as housing, warehouses, etc. Fortunately, Donelan’s, Something Special, the Tack Room, and Twisted Tree remain, but even their future is uncertain. What evidence suggests that a revitalized commercial district in Lincoln will buck the national trend? Even if so, how many more years will it take to realize that dream?

Second, how far will Lincoln seniors walk to access a community center? I suggest you attend various Council on Aging functions at Bemis Hall, such as the Lincoln Academy. Observe how many attendees rely on the elevator. Watch them ascend and descend the stairs. Watch them enter and exit spaces. Then estimate how far most will walk to reach a community center. Use that estimate to draw a circle on a map of Lincoln centered in the Lincoln Mall showing the number of residents living within walking distance. What percentage does this number of walking-distance residents constitute of all Lincoln residents? Conclusion: the vast majority of Lincoln residents reside beyond walking distance and will rely on transportation for reaching the community center. This conclusion holds for all other potential locations. In short, “walking distance” should not be considered in locating the community center.

Request for a distributed services model of programs utilizing spaces throughout Lincoln

Even though this option has been discussed extensively and rejected decisively, assume that a financial analysis shows an advantage of distributing COA services around Lincoln versus a centralized community center. Imagine COA&HS programs taking place at many locations, thereby reducing interactions among participants in different programs. Lincoln residents want a center for their community. They have repeatedly voiced their desire for a gathering place where they can meet others. A distributed services model also creates a nightmare for staff with the need to juggle schedules according to availability of space in several locations and requires substantial effort in moving equipment and supplies in and out of shared spaces.

Plea for minimizing costs of a community center

Lincoln attributes that contribute to high real estate taxes include two-acre zoning, large expanses of conservation land, and a minimal commercial presence. Several options exist for lowering our taxes, including eliminating lot size and building height restrictions, and rezoning large tracts of conservation land to allow light industry. These options would change Lincoln’s character and will not be endorsed by residents. Therefore, we are stuck with high taxes in order to retain the desirable Lincoln characteristics.

The issue becomes one of finding ways to assist those who want to remain in Lincoln but cannot afford the tax payments. Downsizing helps only a few due to scarce availability of smaller, less expensive homes. While subsidies have been mentioned often, using one’s housing equity might also be an option. Reverse mortgages and home equity loans would allow cash-poor residents to pay their share of taxes and remain in Lincoln.

Lincoln residents want and are willing to pay for improving their community. Residents recently approved $94,000,000 for renovating the school and even added further allocations. They will support a community center.

“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.

My Turn: Smith and Chester trade perspectives on community center

By Lynne Smith

(Editor’s note: See the response to Smith’s piece by CCNC Chair Sarah Chester below.)

At the April 4 Community Center Building Committee (CCBC) community forum, I realized that ICON Architecture has no plans to review alternate spaces for community center activities. ICON’s charge is to develop three options for a building on the Hartwell campus: 50%, 75%, and something approaching 100% of the original $25 million cost. As a result, I propose a study group be created to consider “existing available town space” as intended by the vote taken at the 2022 Special Town Meeting.*

The community forum allowed many of the 100 attendees to air their comments. A few were in favor of a new building on the Hartwell campus. Some wanted an open space for informal gathering. Others liked the proximity for after-school programs for students. Several cited the inadequacy of Bemis Hall and pointed to the 2019 town meeting charrette that favored the Hartwell campus as a location.

But many were opposed to a large new building on the Hartwell campus hosting all programs. Here is my summary of this opposition.

Cost to taxpayers — Jonathan Sheffi, who identified himself as a new resident with a young family, described his inability to persuade friends his age to move to Lincoln because of our housing costs and high taxes. Kate Wolf, a long-time resident of Lincoln, pointed out that her taxes have increased significantly in the last four years and she expressed concerns about adding on more capital projects while Lincoln is still paying off bonds for the new school. Both Wolf and Sheffi recognize that Lincoln has no commercial base to mitigate tax bills but think the town should work to minimize taxes whenever possible. Dennis Picker said that he thought the amendment to the November 2022 motion had actually omitted a 100% option for the project, thus ensuring a lower-cost building. His surprise that ICON will study three options led to a moving conversation with Jonathan Dwyer — a very “Lincoln” moment that grounded all of us as a community.

Need for a viable town center — Three architects (Ken Hurd, Brooks Mostue, and David O’Neil) all argued for siting a community center in the “center of the community” as recommended in the long-term plan developed by the Planning Board several years ago. Others including Joe Robbat also made clear their wish for more development at Lincoln Station where there are many vacant spaces along with important amenities.

Use of existing spaces — Many attendees voiced a desire to explore use of existing spaces before committing to a large new building. In fact, the CCBC passed out a spreadsheet labeled Decentralized Programming Matrix which identified the many programs currently being held in spaces other than Bemis Hall or the Hartwell pods. The spreadsheet made clear which activities could continue in those spaces. I was glad to see this listing of programs for the Council on Aging & Human Services (COA&HS) and Parks and Recreation Department (PRD) held in various places around town: the school gyms, the library, the Pierce House and Pierce Park, local churches, our outdoor trails, and off-site activities. As I said at the meeting and in earlier Lincoln Squirrel articles, I support some investment in these spaces to make them suitable for use in the 21st century.

A study group of community spaces — As a result of the community discussion, I hope that Lincoln and/or the CCBC will form a study group to create a current inventory of existing spaces, match them with identified activities, and recommend modifications that would make these spaces even more useful to town activities. This analysis would ensure that alternative spaces get a full and fair review, as was set forth in the Special Town Meeting vote of 2022. Given the number of residents who attended the April 4 CCBC community forum, I am confident that there are eager volunteers to lead and participate in this important effort.

* Here is the motion that was ultimately approved at the Special Town Meeting on November 30, 2022, with amendments to the original motion indicated in boldface:

“That the town vote to transfer the sum of $325,000 from the town’s Stabilization Fund for the purpose of hiring relevant consultant support services, to potentially include project management, design, engineering and other technical reviews to assist the Community Center Building Committee in developing a range of community center design choices and budgets including options not to exceed 75% and 50% of the current project estimated cost of $25 million for the Hartwell complex, supplemented or not with existing available town space, with the intention of presenting said choices at a fall 2023 Special Town Meeting for a vote on a preferred option; and provided further, that it is anticipated that the preferred option selected by the town will be presented for a funding vote in March of 2025.”

Response from SBCC Chair Sarah Chester:

Thank you, Lynne, for your continued thoughts and suggestions for the community center process.

I am puzzled, however, that you think that CCBC and ICON are not concerned with the locations that the COA&HS and the PRD use around town. As shown in the amended motion from the November 2022 Special Town Meeting, and as architect Ned Collier and I reiterated in the “open mic” meeting on April 4, CCBC is obligated to explore the use of other facilities around town to try to meet our program needs. We gave ICON a tour of the outlying spaces in town the day after ICON signed their contract. We shared with them immediately a document highlighting COA&HS and PRD program locations around town, and this program matrix was mentioned in public meetings multiple times. As COA&HS director Abigail Butt pointed out on April 4, ICON has conducted a deep evaluation of Bemis Hall. Facilities Director Brandon Kelly is working with them to understand the Hartwell campus spaces, and ICON will proceed to the Pierce House shortly. Additional locations will be reviewed after that. ICON needs to understand all of these opportunities if they are to develop three viable program options. A separate study committee would duplicate their work and slow the process.

As Ned described, ICON is working along two tracks: conducting an in-depth analysis of the Hartwell site (traffic, wetlands, etc.) and collecting as much program data as possible. This includes extensive interviews with all stakeholders and evaluating other locations around town. CCBC is conducting a third concurrent track: seeking input from town organizations about the project and from residents via a survey about their individual values. This will also inform ICON’s work.

ICON updates the committee and the community on this work at each of our public meetings. They also will be presenting their work and seeking further feedback at our next public forum on April 25. This process is all to help them formulate the variety of price options specified in our charge.  

This response is more detailed than your letter needed, but I want to assure you and other readers that the CCBC is closely following its instructions from the Special Town Meeting and, with the skilled assistance of ICON Architecture, is proceeding along the complex and tight schedule.

Sarah Chester
Chair, Community Center Building Committee

P.S. The next CCBC meeting will be held Wednesday, April 12 at 7 p.m. in the Donaldson Room, Town Hall, hybrid format (see agenda here).

“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.

Community center forum draws wide range of sentiments

At the first “open mic night” held by the Community Center Building Committee, comments ran the gamut from reluctance about building one at all to suggestions for a garden, cafe, piano, and room for repairing appliances.

Also on April 4, the CCBC launched an online survey asking residents about what they think a community center should be. The committee and architects stressed that this type of feedback will be crucial in shaping concepts. The deadline to complete the survey is April 21.

ICON Architecture has been working since early March to gather information on the Hartwell campus site and will present those “objective findings” on April 25, said Principal Architect Ned Collier. There will also be public forums about once a month, said CCBC Chair Sarah Chester.

“We need a public discussion about wants vs. needs. That has yet to occur in the 11-year history of this project,” said Dennis Picker. Collier responded that his team has emphasized that point when talking to stakeholders (primarily the Council on Aging & Human Services and the Parks and Recreation Department), and the survey “will help us identify if there are community-wide wants and needs that aren’t being met.”

Some of the roughly 100 residents who attended online and in person were not sold on the whole idea. “I’m not sure I even understand what you mean by ‘community center,’ said Peter Braun, saying the town’s existing spaces such as the refurbished school and the Pierce House are sufficient. 

Lynne Smith agreed, saying, “I want Lincoln to invest in our existing buildings and make sure they’re part of our lives for decades to come” and look more closely at existing spaces “before totally sinking time into a new building.”

Several residents, while agreeing on the need for a community center, suggested that it be located in the South Lincoln commercial area, even though previous studies and the 2022 Special Town Meeting vote specified the Hartwell pod area as the chosen site.

The town’s 2009 Comprehensive Long-Range Plan calls for a compact, vital, walkable area in the village center to encourage social interaction, “but the Planning Board has not been involved in this [community center] process,” said Ken Hurd. As outlined in the state’s Housing Choice Act, South Lincoln will most likely be rezoned to allow denser housing and for mixed-use development — another reason why it would be the best site for a community center, he added.

But Ruth Ann Hendrickson pushed back, saying that revitalizing South Lincoln “is a terrific idea and many of us are hoping for that, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon… To hold off on building a community center until this difficult problem is solved is just not helpful today. We need to concentrate on what the needs are right now.”

The Hartwell location is best for children who attend LEAP and after-school Parks & Rec programming, and walking to South Lincoln is not a viable option for them, several residents noted. Ultimately, “you’re going to have a hard time locating it in a place where everyone can walk to,” Craig Donaldson observed.

Chester and Collier reiterated that any location other than Hartwell was not up for discussion. “Short of reopening past decisions, [the survey] would help us to understand what it is that we could do with you in this location that would really fly for Lincoln,” Collier said.

Many of those who spoke said they hoped the community center would be a place where people of all ages could gather and socialize informally, work remotely, play ping-pong, etc. “The town would benefit from a space that isn’t bound by specific programming [that’s] open and welcoming; maybe it doesn’t matter if there is an event scheduled and it’s possible to just drop by,” said Lis Herbert. A working kitchen or at least a cafe would be useful for everyone in that regard, several said.

Planners should also find a way to consult with children and teenagers as to what they would like in a community center, said Alice deNormandie — “I think they might have some interesting ideas.”

ICON will present some preliminary cost figures for various options at the Hartwell site at a CCBC meeting in June. 

My Turn: CCBC has tight timeline for gathering public input

By Lynne Smith

(Editor’s note: writer Lynne Smith indicates her personal opinions in italics.)

The March 22 evening meeting of the Community Center Building Committee was disappointing for public attendees, many of whom hoped to hear detail on programming needs, alternate spaces, and a process for soliciting community opinion. About 30 Lincoln residents attended the meeting virtually and in person and were paying close attention. Committee Chair Sarah Chester started the meeting at 7 p.m. and opened it for public comments around 8 p.m.

The topics covered include the following.

  1. Timeline — The committee intends to have ICON, the architectural firm, design several options by June, spend the summer refining costs, and then do further review and refinement prior to a vote for a preferred choice at a fall 2023 Special Town Meeting. Apparently, much work has been happening behind the scenes. Now that the public is engaged, the committee needs to issue updates at the beginning of each meeting. It is late March and the timing seems tight for bringing the town into the discussion.

  2. Community survey and forum — The committee has not prepared a survey but hopes to create, conduct, analyze, and get the results back in time for a community forum on April 25. As Alison Taunton-Rigby of the Communications Subcommittee pointed out, these steps take about one month. During the meeting, the committee brainstormed whom to survey and what sorts of things would be included: Lincoln values, programming wishes, open-ended comments, raw feelings.

The subcommittee agreed to draft the survey at a public meeting on Wednesday, March 29 and mentioned that several other surveys would be conducted this spring, although no specifics were pinned down. There was little discussion of what the community forum would include other than a report by ICON and the survey results. When the meeting opened up to the public, attendees requested that the survey and the forum be used to give the community an opportunity to comment. This suddenly seemed to remind the committee that residents had opinions that should be solicited, both in survey form and in public meetings. To be meaningful, a survey needs thoughtful content and a large sample and a forum needs to attract a large audience. Both take time.

  1. “Stakeholders” and “open mic” night — The CCBC frequently used the term “stakeholders,” meaning COA&HS, Parks and Recreation Department (PRD), the School Committee, and liaisons from the Historical and Conservation Commissions. During public discussion, a consensus was reached that town organizations — such as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Lincoln Family Association — and ordinary citizens are also stakeholders. Consequently, the committee decided to give representatives from 20-30 town organizations and members of the public the opportunity to speak for two minutes or submit a written brief at the CCBC’s April 4 meeting. Assistant Town Administrator Dan Pereira offered to invite these representatives and post the invitation for the public. It appears that the committee will begin soliciting public outreach in April — tight timing as it is already late March.
  1. Programming needs and alternate spaces — The committee presented no analysis of programming needs. At the prior meeting on March 8, [Select Board member] Jonathan Dwyer and [Town Administrator] Tim Higgins reassured some of us that the committee would explore “existing available spaces” for programs, and the committee agreed that an inventory of potential available spaces would aid the architect. At this meeting, however, no mention was made of this until the public discussion. ICON architect Ned Collier said that Chester graciously gave him a “driving tour” of the school and other buildings around town. That sounds insufficient to the expressed desire of many people in town to see a full evaluation of these spaces and how they might be used to flesh out the program needs. It is time for the committee to share a programing analysis with the town as well as with the architect.

*   *   *

I believe a community center is more than a building — it is a coordinated set of activities and places for residents, both young and old. I want to see an analysis of programming needs and an inventory of available spaces that might serve those needs. I would vote for investment in a modest new building on the Hartwell site. I would also vote for an additional sum allocated to improvements/modifications to make existing spaces in Bemis Hall, Pierce House, and the Hartwell Pods more suitable for programs.

The CCBC and town staff may be hard at work on the community center, but this work needs to be more transparent to the town. Public meeting dates need to be announced broadly. I am on the CCBC mailing list but have yet to receive information about scheduled meetings. I urge residents to respond to the survey and attend the April 4 and April 25 meetings, when these opportunities are announced. I urge the committee to seek broad public input from the town prior to the vote next fall.

“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.

Community center group outlines schedule for this spring

Residents will have several opportunities in the coming months to offer input on discussions about the design and cost of a potential community center starting in April, when they will be asked to prioritize programs in the building and distinguish “essential” from “desired.”

The Community Center Building Committee has created a new website, lincolncommunitycenter.com, with progress reports, FAQs on the site’s Outreach page, and a document on lessons learned from other communities pertaining to the design of a community center in the post-Covid era.

Earlier this month, the CCBC and Select Board chose ICON Architecture to develop conceptual designs and cost estimates with options not to exceed 75% and 50% of the $25 million estimate floated in November 2022. Their work will begin by studying the cost implications of site work and programming options. They will share initial thoughts about building siting and conceptual design choices in May, when the CCBC and the community will consider how best to align to the budget targets, according to the CCBS schedule posted on March 17. Residents will vote on a preferred option and budget at a Special Town Meeting in November.

My Turn: CCBC introduces architects and airs concerns

By Lynne Smith

(Editor’s note: Lynne Smith hopes to go to the Community Center Building Committee meetings through June and write a My Turn piece each time. To see details of upcoming meetings, see the CCBC web page.)

At the March 8 meeting of the Community Center Building Committee evening meeting, Sarah Chester, Chair of CCBC, introduced two representatives of ICON Architecture, the firm selected “to assist the CCBC in developing a range of Community Center design choices and budgets, including options not to exceed 75% and 50% of the current project estimated cost of $25 million for the Hartwell complex supplemented or not with existing available town space with the intention of presenting said choices at a fall, 2023 Special Town Meeting for a vote on a preferred option,” as mandated in the measure approved at a Special Town Meeting on November 30, 2022.

The architects described what they plan to accomplish by the fall 2023 Special Town Meeting with the $325,000 allocated for their services. They emphasized they would focus on a “base plan” with a cost basis that would be common across all three options: 50%, 75%, and 100% of the prior cost estimate of $25 million. They mentioned Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and said they would identify “needs” versus “aspirations” with each option [offering] a complete, viable alternative. They also emphasized their experience designing sustainable buildings with very low energy use and excellent air quality and said these qualities would be “baked in” to all options. They said all the right things!

Those attending on line and in the room raised two big concerns:

First: Existing available town spaces. Many residents, including me, want to see “existing available town space” used for COA&HS and Parks & Recreation programs. This was not mentioned until the CCBC opened the meeting to the public. Town Administrator Tim Higgins and Select Board member Jonathan Dwyer reassured some of us that the use of alternate spaces would be explored. Personally, I am hopeful that all our treasured buildings — Bemis Hall, the Pierce House, the Lincoln Library, Codman Barn, town offices — will be maintained and in active use. Few towns of our size have such a rich resource of beautiful historic buildings. However, if they are not actively used for municipal purposes, then I fear that deferred maintenance will lead to their collapse.

Second: Public outreach and programming needs. The architects have been given a June deadline for presenting a framework for three options. They would then spend the summer working on details and cost estimates in time for the fall meeting vote. It is crucial that the committee provide clear opportunities for public input to help shape those options as they are being developed this spring. It was not at all clear at last night’s meeting if and how this would happen.

A public outreach plan has not yet been created and all work defining the perceived needs has been conducted in private meetings between stakeholders.

Perceived needs from the last design seem like a starting point for current deliberation, but no concrete data has been made available. Instead, we have been given anecdotes. For example, senior dining (lunch on Fridays) and potential cooking classes are used to justify the need for a new kitchen when there are multiple kitchens and dining areas around town that could accommodate these programs. Nor is the uneven pavement and inclement weather under Pierce House tent a good reason to build a new exercise center when nearby towns offer luxurious new gyms which residents could access with vouchers. As for parking at Bemis, all spaces in front could be made handicapped-accessible during large events. If folks can’t walk across the street safely, perhaps they need more than municipal services can provide.

Although Sarah Chester announced that CCBC meetings would be held publicly every other Wednesday from now until June, it is not clear that these meetings will include public discussion. Public outreach should be more than marketing the plans that have been developed in private meetings.

I am 78 years old, have lived in Lincoln for 20 years, and have fallen in love with its scattered historic buildings, wooded trails, and minimal commercial spaces. I want to continue to explore all aspects of the town and run into various folks as I do so. I have no desire to always go to one brand-new building for everything! I hope that CCBC takes seriously the need to find out what town residents, not just the stakeholders (COA/HS and P&R) want for our future.

“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.

Design firm for community center is chosen

The Community Center Building Committee has announced that the Town of Lincoln has hired ICON Architecture for professional services to develop plans for a community center within the Hartwell segment of the Lincoln School campus on Ballfield Road.

“It was a very difficult decision,” and references were a major factor, said Select Board member Jonathan Dwyer (the board’s liaison to the CCBC). Town Administrator Tim Higgins noted that ICON Architecture demonstrated openness in their past work to repurposing older buildings and were committed to the town’s sustainability goals.

Six firms submitted proposals and four were invited for interviews. There were two finalists — the other was Maryann Thompson Architects, which came up with the two design concepts that gained the most positive feedback from residents at a 2018 Special Town Meeting.

The most recent cost estimates in November 2022 pegged the project at about $26 million, which caused considerable consternation among residents. Based on a Special Town Meeting vote in December 2022 when design funding was approved, the designer must develop a range of design choices and budgets, including options not to exceed 75% and 50% of the $25 million estimate, for the Hartwell complex (supplemented or not with existing available town space).

ICON Architecture — a women-owned Boston firm that specializes in institutional building types, building renewal, multi-family, and affordable housing — will develop schematic design options in preparation for a vote on a preferred design and budget at a Special Town Meeting in November 2023.

 

Officials will take lessons from community center town meeting

In the wake of a sometimes chaotic four-hour Special Town Meeting (STM) about the community center, the Select Board will aim to get a better handle on voter sentiment and make future town meetings run more efficiently.

The November 30 STM started about half an hour late due to the long line of residents waiting to check in. There were also delays as standing votes were counted, and several residents also wanted to submit amendments to the motion to approve spending $325,000 on architects and other consultants to create design options for a community center. The measure that ultimately won approval called for a range of designs and budgets, “including options not to exceed 75% and 50% of the current project estimated cost of $25 million, for the Hartwell Complex, supplemented or not with existing available town space.” 

Going forward, the Select Board on December 12 advocated:

  • Having future Special Town Meetings during the day on a Saturday rather than on a weekday night
  • Expediting the check-in process
  • Having shorter presentations
  • Always having town counsel present

Another problem on November 30 was confusion among some attendees about what exactly they would be voting on. Initially, the plan was to develop prices and designs for two options suggested by Mary Ann Thompson Architects in 2018, but many residents got cold feet in the weeks before the STM when they learned that estimates for both were now about $25 million. 

The board and Community Center Building Committee tried to emphasize before the STM that the $325,000 would be used to develop lower-cost options as well, but this wasn’t clear to many voters on November 30. Those worries about cost were underestimated by town officials. 

“We were not sensing the temperature of the room,” Select Board member Jonathan Dwyer said. “It was fall when the temperature was really rising.” 

To get a sense of public sentiment before voting, the town has tried in-person polls using sticky dots or notes, as well as online surveys, but each method has detractors who say they unfairly exclude some residents, such as those who can’t attend a meeting in person or seniors who aren’t comfortable with digital technology. But board member Jim Hutchinson advocated for email or web-based surveys or polls anyway. 

“Isn’t it better to get the data and acknowledge its biases and limitations than not to look at it at all? We need more data on what people are thinking sooner in the process,” he said.

When the detailed community center choices come up for a “preferred option” STM vote a year from now, the first round of voting (assuming there are three or more choices) should be anonymous, as it was for the final school project vote in 2018, board member Jennifer Glass said, adding that “none of the above” could also be an option for voters.

Hutchinson also suggested trying out instant phone-based polling during a future non-voting meeting, though only to quickly and informally gauge opinion on a specific point of discussion. Allowing hundreds of people to express an opinion at the same time rather than waiting a turn to speak at the microphone would save time. “Think of it simply as a feedback mechanism for getting a sense or pulse rather than a legally binding voting process,” he said.

Another idea suggested by Town Administrator Tim Higgins was to have a “scribe” with a laptop assigned to type up proposed amendments to be displayed on large screens in real time for everyone to see. At the November 30 event, six different people asked to offer amendments; reading and voting on each would have taken hours, but Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden convinced them to get together and agree on wording for a single amendment.

Hutchinson noted that he got positive feedback as well as complaints about how the STM was conducted. People told him they realized that debate on the floor can change minds and that democracy is inherently messy. “It was democracy in action. It might not have been the cleanest thing but it got there,” he said.

My Turn: Moving forward with plans for a community center

By June Matthews

Things have been strangely quiet on the community center front — perhaps everyone is exhausted after the November 30marathon town meeting and the preceding torrent of posts on Lincoln Talk. Now that the CCBC has the authority to spend $325,000 to study the previous two proposals for a gold-plated Community Center at Hartwell, along with a direction to explore lower-cost options, including placement of some services and facilities at other locations, I request that the Committee pay serious attention to the last point.

It is clear that the after-school programs of the P&RD should most sensibly be located at the schools, as that’s where the kids are. But I assert that it makes little if any sense to locate the activities of the COA&HS there. There has been much discussion of the virtues of a multigenerational community center. But I have my doubts as to the extent that intergenerational mixing would occur at such a center, given the present structure of the P&RD and COA&HS programs.

As others have pointed out, there are already opportunities in town for social contact among families and people of all ages — think First Day and Winter Carnival, for example, plus programs at our library and at Codman. I would like to request that the CCBC use some of their time and energy, and perhaps funds, to “think outside the box.” What do Lincoln seniors (I am one) really need, want, and value?

My vision is of a community center conveniently located at Lincoln Station — walking distance from the Ryan Estate as well as from other high-density residential areas which cater to mixed ages and mixed incomes: Lincoln Woods, the Ridge Court apartments, the Greenridge and Todd Pond condominiums. Not everyone will walk, of course, but those who are there with their cars will have convenient access to other essential services, e.g., Donelan’s and the post office, plus two restaurants, two dry cleaning establishments, a bank, Something Special, etc. Not to mention the train station, for those wishing to venture farther afield.

A new building on the site of the commuter lot has been proposed, as commuting has dwindled with many people still working remotely. One would have to ascertain whether adequate parking would remain. Others have proposed utilizing vacant space in existing buildings, on both sides of Lincoln Road. There has been much talk about “revitalizing” the town center, with zoning changes possibly attracting new businesses. Given the experience in other towns, this might or might not happen.

Alternatively, I can envisage a community center as a magnet to draw more people to the true center of our town. One objection has been that would essentially be a senior center rather than a true community center. I contend that it doesn’t have to be: P&RD activities which don’t involve the school’s athletic facilities could take place there. (And maybe a senior center is not such a bad idea after all?)

It was pointed out at the Special Town Meeting that attendees at the previous meeting overwhelmingly voted with their “dots” for the Hartwell site. However, there have been many changes since then in technology, the economy, work, shopping, socializing, and health. Let’s not bury our heads in the sands of the past.

June Matthews lives on Greenridge Lane.

“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.

Voters OK community center design funds after lengthy debate

The check-in line for voters took many twists and turns at the November 30 Special Town Meeting.

A Special Town Meeting with one warrant article, so… one simple vote, right? Not so much, as it turned out.

The final vote was overwhelmingly in favor of paying for designs for a community center, but getting there took almost four hours on a rainy November 30 evening. The Donaldson Auditorium and lecture hall were filled to capacity and extra chairs had to be brought in to accommodate the hundreds of residents who called out greetings and shook off raindrops as they made their way along a check-in line that snaked down hallways and around corners.

The motion that was finally approved allows the town to move $325,000 from the debt stabilization fund to hire design and engineering consultants to develop “a range of Community Center design choices and budgets, including options not to exceed 75% and 50% of the current project estimated cost of $25 million, for the Hartwell Complex, supplemented or not with existing available town space.” There will be a vote on the preferred option at another STM a year from now, and a funding vote in March 2024.

The meeting, which started about half an hour late, included presentations from the Council on Aging & Human Services and the Parks and Recreation Department (the two primary users of the proposed building) as well as the Community Center Building Committee, Finance Board chair Andy Payne, and others. Together they laid out in detail the findings of the many previous studies on how Bemis Hall and the Hartwell pods are inadequate for the services provided by the two departments, why they should be under one roof in the Hartwell complex, analyses of various other sites around town, and the tax implications of town borrowing at various levels.

No one seemed to doubt that some expenditures to fix the problems are required, but voters reiterated their unhappiness with the $25 million price tag for the two design concepts suggested in 2018 in several venues, including the recent State of the Town meeting and dozens of posts on LincolnTalk. The Select Board and CCBC acknowledged this in recent meetings as they debated how to word the STM motion. They decided together that voters would be asked for funds to develop several options, with the $25 million concept being the most expensive. With the CCBC’s blessing the board also decided to specify the Hartwell location in the wording it endorses on November 28.

“We, like you, have been surprised and dismayed by the projected costs,” CCBC Chair Sarah Chester said at the STM, adding that the focus will be on “scaling back” the two initial designs. “We recognize that the $25 million is far too much.”

However, the town still needs to hire professionals to come up with alternatives. “We absolutely need an architect to develop these options,” Select Board member Jonathan Dwyer said.

If the motion were to be voted down, the town would still need to spend $4.8–$6.2 million to renovate the decaying pods and $8.8–$9.6 million to upgrade Bemis Hall as a senior center, even though that would not solve the parking issues. Delaying a decision about building a community center “will increase the cost of any solution year after year,” she said.

Eric Harris, a former FinCom and CCPPDC member, urged residents not to repeat earlier mistakes. “The reason we’re here today and nobody wants to talk about it is the defeat of the 2012 school project,” he said. (The estimate at that time was $49 million, with the town paying $28 million and the rest coming from the state; Lincoln eventually had to fund the entire school project by itself for $93 million.)

“We got a better project but I have questions as to whether it was worth $65 million more,” Harris continued. “A lot of people are making the same arguments that it’s too much money for taxes” and people will be forced to move out of Lincoln, “but I haven’t noticed there’s been a great exodus from town. Seniors were told that if they waited, we would build a community center in exchange for supporting the school project. If we wait, we run the risk of doing what we did with the school building project before: greatly raising the cost.”

“I think we should all remember that implicit promise,” said Rhonda Swain, president of the board of the Friends of the COA&HS, adding that a fundraising committee was “formed and ready to get to work” to solicit private donations to help defray the community center’s cost.

But others were unconvinced. “My belief is more tasks still need to be done,” Dennis Picker said. “We should carefully evaluate [needs] service by service” and fund “only essentials and a well considered use of existing facilities as appropriate.” The motion’s wording “does not require we get a vetting of needs vs. wants, or a no-frills option.”

June Matthews agreed, suggesting that the facility should be located in South Lincoln close to shops and the Ryan Estate to revitalize the village, although others argued that that site has numerous issues of its own. “Hartwell is not the center of the community,” she said. 

Amid all the discussion and questions, there were several time-consuming motions and votes before residents reached the finish line… one to end debate early on (easily defeated). One to hold the final vote by secret ballot (defeated, though it required a standing vote count to be sure). Another vote to end debate (again defeated, though again requiring counters to tally the show of hands, with the final margin 59% to 41%). Six amended motions submitted on paper, which Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden asked the writers to consolidate into one. Further debate on the floor over the exact wording of the amendment spearheaded by Ross Tucker (how many price points should it specify as a percentage of the original estimate? Should it require a $15 million option at the Hartwell complex? Should it mention other possible sites for some of the COA&HS and PRD activities?).

Then there was debate among officials over whether $325,000 would cover the cost of developing more than the two initial designs. FinCom Vice Chair Paul Blanchfield initially said more money would be needed, but after huddling with colleagues, announced that the sum would be enough to produce three price-point options.

Finally, as the 11 p.m. hour approached, there was a third vote to cut off debate on the amendment (unanimously passed). Then there was a vote to amend the motion (approved by the required two-thirds majority, 233–108, after another standing vote, though several dozen people had left the meeting by then). And finally the vote on the motion itself, which passed with only a handful of dissenters.

“This is the last time we’re having a town meeting without town counsel present,” Holden remarked dryly.