David Cuetos said: <snip> > Anyone who has followed the CCBC’s process knows there were certain > “luxuries” included in the project vision that could have been trimmed. I > haven’t followed their work since town Meeting, but I’d think removing the > teaching kitchen, cheaper finishes and cutting down on site work would all > move the needle materially > </snip>
Unfortunately, the site work is a relatively large portion of the CC cost and equally unfortunately it's not likely that it can easily be reduced. The site is very constrained by wetlands (see the GIS) and some of it is in the buffers. This by law requires mitigations, and mitigations are expensive. If I were to poke fault at the CCBC process it is that the cost implications of the wetland and a larger vs smaller footprint building were not explained to the town. We were asked what we would prefer for a design, not how much (in $) we preferred it. Having served as a town volunteer on boards and committees for many years I have a pretty good idea why it was done this way - it's an extremely hard sort of question to ask of an electorate and get any kind of coherent answer. All that being said, I don't think a redesign is a good use of my tax money. Could we get a more cost effective building? Maybe, but we would have to start from scratch and at the end of the day starting from scratch would wind up costing just as much as the current plan even with it's cost increases. As FinCom, Andy Payne, and others have pointed out. It would be a largely pointless use of town time and resources. We're a small town with limited staff. There are only so many projects or issues they can tackle at once because there just aren't that many staff. Margaret
-- 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.
