I return to one of my longstanding frustrations: the lack of impartiality and factual rigor on our town’s website when presenting information about warrant articles.
Take, for instance, the statement regarding Article 1, which addresses the Community Center budget expansion: “The CCBC has determined that cutting $2.3M out of the project would require a complete redesign (estimated cost $1.5M to $2.0M) and a delayed timeline, resulting in further escalated costs ($1.5M to $2.0M). With funds spent to date approaching $2M, a redesign would add approximately $5M+ of unanticipated expenses to the original project budget.” Let’s break this paragraph down, sentence by sentence: “cutting $2.3M out of the project would require a complete redesign (estimated cost $1.5M to $2.0M)” This stretches the bounds of plausibility. Anyone familiar with construction projects knows that cost-cutting trade-offs are often necessary, and rarely do they require paying full architectural fees all over again. I’ve never heard of an architect telling a client that reducing the scope of a project by 10% necessitates starting from scratch at full cost. If the project is over budget, that reflects at least in part a failure on the part of the architects to guide the process responsibly. “and a delayed timeline, resulting in further escalated costs ($1.5M to $2.0M)” Have they never heard of the time value of money? I’d rather see my taxes levied two years from now than today. Delaying the project means capital remains available for more productive uses. Even if the funds are already allocated, they would be earning interest—likely 4–5%. Any escalation estimate should be offset by that. Moreover, our record for predicting escalation is weak at best. We should avoid baseless speculation. “With funds spent to date approaching $2M” This is a textbook example of the sunk cost fallacy. Prior spending is irrelevant to the decision at hand. What matters is the incremental cost of a redesign compared to the existing plan. Past expenditures should have no bearing on that evaluation. “a redesign would add approximately $5M+ of unanticipated expenses to the original project budget” This is misleading. A redesign, by definition, implies a different project. The assumption here is that the baseline cost of the redesign would match that of the original plan, which is a false premise. In fact, a redesign would probably have a smaller overall budget. Even if there are duplicative expenses—like revised architectural drawings—there’s a real possibility the town could still save money overall. In sum, the statement on the town website reveals a mix of fear-mongering, misdirection, and a surprising degree of financial illiteracy. What this really signals is that the CCBC is unwilling to compromise on its original vision and is “holding the town ransom” (*a phrase I’m growing fond of*) by grossly exaggerating the cost of changing course—just as taxpayers begin to question the wisdom of approving an overrun before ground has even been broken. On the bright side, a “No” vote on the 25th would supersede last year’s bonding approval. The CCBC has made it clear they cannot deliver the approved project within the allocated budget. Perhaps the CCBC's stubborness is a blessing in disguise. David Cuetos Weston Rd
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
