A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to the Shaker Lane School project, with members like Mary Lee Mercy, the project architect, providing updates. Mercy expressed her gratitude for the opportunity to address accessibility concerns early on, emphasizing the commitment to making the project more accessible without incurring additional costs. The project architect, together with Annalise Taber, had compiled a list of potential accessibility features and was open to questions about specific inclusions or examples from previous projects.

The importance of early involvement from the Disability Commission was stressed by several members, who cited past issues with insufficient marking of handicap parking spaces and other accessibility oversights in town projects. Bill Porter, who has personal experience as a disabled veteran and father of a disabled adult son, underscored the necessity of involving the commission from the outset to ensure projects meet community needs. Another participant recalled past challenges with ensuring accessibility, pointing out that previous projects often bypassed the commission, leading to non-compliance with accessibility standards.

Rob Rouse voiced disappointment over the conversation, arguing for a more active role for the commission in advocating for the disabled community. He stressed that delays in addressing accessibility needs were unacceptable and urged for proactive measures to ensure immediate improvements for the disabled.

The financial aspect of the project was also a key topic of discussion. The project’s cost had been reduced from over $100 million to $98.1 million, with anticipated state support amounting to $38.2 million. Concerns were raised about the financial implications of not moving forward with the new school project, noting that once a spending threshold on the existing building was reached, significant costs would be incurred to bring the current structure up to code. There was consensus that the financial case for a new school was compelling due to the expenses required to maintain the current facilities.

The role of the Disability Commission was examined in depth, with a focus on their potential endorsement of the project. The potential negative impact of a dissenting recommendation on the project was acknowledged.

A proposal was made to create a mission statement to clarify the committee’s objectives and expectations for the project, emphasizing the need for a building that meets not just minimum ADA requirements but also the specific needs of the community. There was consensus that while the project was not yet fully endorsed, a positive statement could convey the committee’s engagement and willingness to work with the project developers.

Throughout the discussion, the necessity of transparency and community involvement was underscored. Members agreed on the importance of maintaining open communication lines and ensuring that all necessary accommodations were included in the planning phase. The availability of architectural drawings with specifications for ADA compliance was confirmed.