The architects, Ellen and Josephine, played a role in the meeting, presenting a spreadsheet detailing potential cost-saving measures which could potentially reduce the project’s financial burden. These measures included deferring landscape work, omitting interior finishes, and substituting building materials. However, the architects highlighted a significant caveat: the cost of redesigning the project to incorporate these savings could run into several hundred thousand dollars. This opened a debate on the value of cost-saving against the need for a redesign.

The trustees also discussed specific elements of the building’s design, focusing on choices between materials such as fiber cement siding and brick, as well as roofing options including standing seam metal versus asphalt shingles. The visual aesthetics of these materials, their impact on the building’s sustainability, and the associated costs were scrutinized. A particular concern was the environmental impact of the proposed materials, with trustees delving into the details of embodied carbon figures and energy use intensity.

Financial deliberations extended beyond construction materials to other aspects of the project. There was a conversation around the budget allocation for books, furnishings, and fixtures, with trustees seeking opportunities for savings through value engineering. The cost of partitions, column covers, and the inclusion of photovoltaic panels were other points of contention. The trustees debated material choices such as tile versus carpet and the possibility of standardizing lighting fixtures to cut costs and improve maintenance efficiency.

A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to the pragmatics of decision-making timelines and the necessity for further debate on proposed design changes before advancing to the contract stage. This was in the context of a broader discussion about the budget gap and the hope that a redesign might lead to more competitive bids in the future.

The trustees also addressed the renovation’s logistical aspects, such as the electrical system’s redesign and the fire suppression system’s cost-efficiency. The implications of window replacements on energy usage were also examined.

Further complicating the budgetary discussions were updates required for the HVAC system, fire alarm and suppression, and roof repair. Members questioned the updated estimates for these repairs and the possible financial impact of including asbestos abatement costs. The application of historic tax credits was another point of discussion, as certain alterations to the building could affect grant eligibility.

Public comments reflected support for the committee’s detailed attention to the project’s complexities. However, there was a contentious moment when a Board of Trustees member participated during the public comment period, which sparked a discussion about the appropriateness of board members engaging in public commentary.