The main focus of the meeting was the financial and logistical feasibility of the two proposed sites. The Washington Street site was praised for its favorable traffic management, being on a quieter road, which could offer easier access for seniors. However, its steep terrain raised concerns about safety, especially in inclement weather, potentially deterring seniors from visiting. In contrast, the Bishop Road site’s significant utility installation costs, estimated around $1.4 million for water and power connections, posed a financial challenge despite its ample space for future expansion.

The committee delved deeply into the practicalities of each site, emphasizing the importance of obtaining accurate cost estimates to inform their decision. The urgency of these estimates was underscored by the approaching fall town meeting deadline, necessitating prompt action to present an informed recommendation to the community.

A notable discussion point was the need for additional test pits at both sites to better understand soil conditions, particularly concerning groundwater and potential rock removal. The brush dump site, though initially limited by access issues, showed promising sandy conditions favorable for construction. Conversely, the Washington Street site faced obstacles, with excavation hitting refusal due to boulders or ledge between 4 to 7.5 feet.

Traffic flow and safety were recurring themes, with a consensus on the necessity of clear entrance and exit points to minimize confusion for older drivers. One-way traffic patterns, proven effective at other centers, were suggested as a potential solution, although multiple entry points could initially cause confusion, referencing experiences from other locations. Parking configurations were also debated, with proposed layouts accommodating over 100 vehicles, though concerns persisted about the practicality of these designs due to terrain constraints.

The conversation also explored the potential long-term versus short-term impacts of the site selection. While some argued that initial hesitation would diminish as residents became familiar with the area, others remained skeptical about ongoing traffic concerns at the Washington Street site. The proximity to the hospital was seen as an advantage, though past experiences with similar developments outside town centers cast doubt on the feasibility.

Financial considerations extended beyond construction costs to future operational expenses, particularly regarding energy efficiency. Discussions about solar panel installations and advanced building materials highlighted the need for sustainable solutions to manage long-term utility costs. The financial differential between the sites, ranging from $1.1 million to $1.4 million, was a factor in the decision-making process, with committee members stressing the importance of understanding these costs to make an informed choice.

Environmental concerns related to the transfer station near the Harvard Road site were also addressed. Monitoring for landfill gas and groundwater showed no issues, but perceptions of old landfill practices lingered, necessitating clear communication to reassure the community about the site’s safety.

Design and functionality of the proposed building were scrutinized, particularly regarding accessibility and convenience for users. The placement of a patio, the need for a drive-up portico, and the inclusion of accessible walkways were among the key points of contention. Construction costs were a recurring concern, with estimates indicating significant expenses for certain design elements, such as a more traditional farmhouse-style wraparound porch.

As the meeting progressed, the necessity of a detailed cost estimate and a consolidated environmental report became clear. The committee agreed on the importance of these documents to facilitate a vote on the preferred site. The timeline for obtaining cost estimates was established, with preliminary figures expected for the next meeting on the 28th, along with input from the police and fire chiefs.