The meeting’s primary concern was the budget constraints imposed by the select board, who deemed the project too large and expensive for the town’s needs. The committee expressed frustration with the select board’s stance, noting a lack of engagement with the project’s necessity and long-term planning aspects. Despite prior adjustments made to address earlier feedback, the select board’s firm $10 million limit remained unchanged, presenting a significant hurdle.

Committee members discussed the need for a more unified approach in communicating with the select board. They acknowledged that while some cuts would be necessary to align with budget expectations, the essence of the project must be preserved. The need to reduce costs by at least $1 million was highlighted, emphasizing the importance of finding savings not only in the building design but across the entire project budget, including architectural fees.

Another issue was the misunderstanding surrounding the project’s costs. Confusion arose over the figures presented, with some questioning the claims of savings per square foot and the rationale behind cost estimates. The committee recognized the necessity of making substantial changes to the building to achieve cost reductions, such as considering material substitutions like replacing a planned brick patio with a lawn.

Public sentiment was also an aspect of the discussion, with attendees expressing dissatisfaction with the select board’s handling of the project. There was a call for more public outreach to strengthen support and ensure successful passage at the upcoming town meeting. The committee acknowledged the funding gap of $2.1 million that needed addressing to meet the town’s financial expectations, urging collaboration among stakeholders to navigate these challenges.

The discussion also touched on the complexities of the project’s financial framework, with varying figures and funding sources contributing to the confusion. The committee sought clarity on the target budget, expressing the need to begin the budgeting process immediately rather than waiting for the select board’s next meeting. The proposal to explore increasing existing capital allocations and identifying other potential funding sources was put forward as a way to meet the $14.5 million target.

Design considerations were another focal point, as the committee debated the feasibility of reducing the building’s size without compromising its future utility. The importance of constructing a facility that would serve the community for the next 50 years was emphasized, with members skeptical about the practicality of building additions later. The need to maintain programmatic integrity while making necessary cuts was underscored, with a proposal for the architects and project manager to meet and explore potential savings.

The public outreach strategy was a significant topic of conversation, with discussions on how to effectively engage the community and address misconceptions about the project’s value. The committee planned a series of public input sessions, mass mailings, and social media campaigns to disseminate information and gather support. The use of yard signs and informational sessions in various venues was also considered to raise awareness and encourage community participation.