At the state of the town meeting we were asked to indicate our preference regarding four different options. We were given information about attributes of each option including its estimated cost, footprint on the site, sustainability features, pedestrian walkways, parking, accommodations for the LEAP program, whether it had windows looking out onto courtyards, potential floor plans, and the amount of newly constructed or renovated floor space.
Missing was any information about what current programs and services offered by PRD and COA/HS could be accommodated by each option and at what attendance level. What capacity did each option provide for future growth in population or addition of new programs and services? Also missing was any information about any differences between the options regarding how PRD and COA/HS administrative activities could function. This missing information is crucial for making an informed comparison. Instead, the architect in his presentation said that the most costly option came the closest to meeting the town’s needs, the next most expensive options fell somewhat short of that, and the lowest cost option fell even farther away. He also said that it would be more difficult to schedule programs and services into the lowest cost option. This was based on comparing floor space for each option to the 13,000 square foot May 2023 proposal that covered program scheduling plus the type, number and size of various spaces. As I pointed out in a previous post, the May proposal was never properly vetted at any public meeting. Among other issues it contains egregious errors in its calculations of the utilization of various program spaces. Those utilization numbers drive the type and number of program spaces needed, in an effort to have each space well utilized while leaving capacity for adding additional activities. To date the CCBC has not corrected those errors. Using the May proposal as a benchmark is problematic. I posted a question at the SOTT meeting asking for information that showed what programs/services/growth each option supports. At the October 10 public forum I urged the committee to make such information available to help people make informed decisions when they vote for a preferred choice at the December special town meeting. I got a few affirmative head nods when I made my plea. I hope the committee follows through and provides this information and discusses it at a public meeting. I also hope that if they provide this information that it comes in a timely way with opportunity for the public to digest it and make comments and provide feedback related to it. Publishing this information as an unvetted FAQ at the last minute is an inadequate response. Without this information, properly vetted, the process leading to a vote for the preferred choice is deeply flawed. What if instead of claiming, as one SOTT commenter did, that the lowest cost option is “too small to be worthwhile,” that we find out what it actually can provide? Dennis Picker Page Rd
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
