The committee’s primary focus was on three distinct renovation options, each with varying scopes and budgets. The first option, known as the reconciled estimate, involves a comprehensive project budget of $14.4 million, with construction costs amounting to $11.5 million. This option includes all corrective measures based on original programming and schematic designs. The second option, slightly less ambitious, proposes a construction cost of $9.9 million and a total budget of $12.6 million. It incorporates value engineering measures such as minimizing internal partitions and reducing finishes while still covering the entire 22,000 square feet.

The third option, which offers the most limited scope, focuses only on essential areas like the town offices, cafeteria, gym, and Council on Aging (COA). With a construction cost of $8.1 million and a project budget of $10.6 million, this plan allows for abatement and window placement but leaves other areas unfinished.

Discussion revealed a consensus that the third option might not align with the community’s needs. A committee member emphasized that presenting it as the bare minimum could be misleading. The committee also acknowledged the rising costs of renovations, with expenses exceeding previous estimates due to unforeseen factors like electrical and plumbing studies.

The dialogue further delved into financial planning, considering potential funding sources like a $2 million municipal building fund and approximately $1 million in free cash available for the project. The committee underscored the need for a realistic and comprehensive financial presentation to the select board, noting that constructing a new building could be more expensive than renovation, with estimates reaching $22 million.

Time was spent discussing the project’s timeline, with concerns about delays potentially extending it into 2026. A proposal to hold a special town meeting as early as late March was suggested. The committee debated the merits of this approach versus waiting for the regular Spring town meeting in May, recognizing that postponing decisions could lead to higher expenses due to rising construction costs and potential tariffs.

The committee also explored the financial intricacies of the project, including soft costs and contingencies. They emphasized the importance of having accurate numbers before approaching the select board, proposing different financial scenarios to present, including options for full abatement. The potential for a second round of estimates was mentioned, which would provide more accurate figures based on design document progress.

The meeting also touched on grant opportunities, specifically the Rural Development Fund Grant and other funding from legislators. The committee discussed their goals and concerns related to the project, acknowledging support from a legislator who expressed enthusiasm for the project’s potential benefits to the town. Research into community grant opportunities was being conducted, focusing on building rehabilitation and meeting code compliance.

Concluding their discussions, the committee proposed a future joint meeting with the select board to address any immediate questions or decisions. This meeting would allow the committee to respond quickly to decisions made by the select board and plan subsequent actions. There was agreement on the necessity of ensuring timely decision-making during the select board meeting to keep the project on track.