The roof of the Whately Center School emerged as a concern, with discussions highlighting its deteriorating state and the necessity for immediate repairs. A coordinator, Garrett, was introduced to oversee the maintenance work, and it was noted that a patch repair had been arranged to prevent water infiltration into the basement. However, the consensus was that a full roof replacement would soon be unavoidable. The historical nature of the building added complexity to the decision-making process, as restoring the roof to its original slate condition was estimated to cost upwards of $100,000. The committee considered utilizing old slate from the Monson Development Center as a cost-effective alternative, although there were concerns about matching the existing material.

The financial implications of the roof repair were further explored, with a focus on potential funding from the Community Preservation Act (CPA) administrative expense fund. Around $12,000 was available annually for such projects, but prior commitments could limit the funds accessible for the roof. The committee acknowledged that no large-scale projects had recently been funded by the CPA, potentially leaving a surplus for the year.

In parallel, the committee concentrated on finalizing the rollout plan for a survey designed to gather community feedback on the school’s future. They discussed ensuring accessibility across digital platforms such as phones, laptops, and tablets and considered offering paper versions to accommodate residents’ preferences. The survey’s distribution strategy included making physical copies available at locations like Town Hall and the library, and using a QR code to facilitate digital access. A flyer was proposed to promote the survey on social media, with an emphasis on encouraging residents to share it within their networks to maximize participation.

The committee deliberated on the survey’s deadline, ultimately setting September 30 as the final date for submissions. This timeline was chosen to allow sufficient time for responses while ensuring that a preliminary report could be presented by September 25. The discussion touched on logistical aspects, including mailing the survey to all residents through the town’s newsletter, the Scoop, and providing drop-off points for completed surveys.

The structural integrity of the school’s attic was also a focal point of the meeting. Concerns were raised about the safety of the attic, with recommendations for strengthening or redesigning the truss system. The building inspector noted that the trusses were old and lacked modern engineering design, and further investigation was deemed necessary to assess their load-bearing capacity. The conversation also addressed the implications of potentially using the attic for activities like a daycare center, which would require careful analysis of the existing construction to ensure safety.

Another topic was the survey’s content and structure, with discussions around clarifying questions to ensure accurate data collection. The committee debated whether to allow multiple responses per household to capture diverse perspectives and demographic data. They also explored the nuances of terminology related to zoning changes and business establishments, particularly the distinction between a “brew pub” and a “pub,” and its impact on community perceptions. Concerns were raised about the feasibility of creating a community center and the need to manage residents’ expectations regarding new uses of the space.