The meeting opened with a notable decision on PCB testing for the West Street building. The committee deliberated over a proposal from Atlas, which suggested conducting sixty samples to assess potential contamination. This number raised concerns among members, with some questioning its necessity. However, it was clarified that the number was flexible and contingent on initial results. After thorough discussion, the committee reached a consensus to proceed with the proposal, resulting in a motion to accept the contract. The decision was unanimous, and plans to expedite the scheduling with Atlas were discussed promptly after the vote.

The conversation then transitioned to signage for the building, sparked by changes in the primary entrance’s location. Initially positioned at the cafeteria’s side, the entrance had been moved to the north end of the building, prompting a reevaluation of existing signage. A member noted that the current sign, which prominently displayed “Granby,” might mislead visitors seeking the main entrance. To address potential confusion, the committee explored several suggestions, including relocating the sign to an area devoid of windows or installing a standalone pylon sign. Lighting considerations were also discussed, with decisions hinging on the building’s after-hours use. A consensus emerged on the necessity of a clearly visible entrance sign to guide visitors through the expansive structure.

Another issue involved the ongoing communication challenges regarding the reactivation of the building’s public water supply. The committee was faced with delays due to missed calls with the authority responsible for the water supply, which, if unresolved, could lead to substantial costs—estimated at $50,000 for testing and over $100,000 for a new well. The committee expressed hope for a resolution, noting that current designs were predicated on the assumption of an active public water supply.

The meeting also touched on the construction documents, specifically the need to address damaged ceiling tiles and drywall in the basement to prevent mildew growth. A formal request was made, and updates were provided on drainage issues in the courtyard. The Department of Public Works had repaired a broken pipe, yet further testing was deemed necessary, particularly with anticipated heavy rainfall providing an opportunity to verify the efficacy of the repairs.

In addition to these discussions, the committee considered logistical and procedural aspects, such as the submission of materials to the planning board. Members debated whether the building committee or the design team should submit the documents, ultimately agreeing that the design team would handle the submission, with the town as the applicant. Emphasis was placed on providing detailed documentation to avoid delays, and digital submissions were favored, despite the requirement for multiple physical copies for official records.

The committee underscored the importance of engaging with the new building official in town, proposing a virtual meeting to discuss the project and obtain feedback before advancing to the bidding phase. This dialogue followed the building inspector’s earlier involvement in assessing drainage issues, highlighting the need for clear communication channels with key stakeholders.

Lastly, the committee reviewed and approved the minutes from the previous meeting and scheduled their next session for two weeks later, on the 16th, to continue addressing ongoing project needs. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and agreed upon by all members.