At the forefront of the committee’s discussion was the abatement of the former school building, a topic that generated a sense of urgency among the members. The conversation revealed a split in opinion on whether to proceed with full abatement or to explore alternatives such as partial abatement and encapsulation, due to concerns about budget constraints and practicality. The committee recognized the necessity of meeting the June completion date for the abatement, and the discussion highlighted the complexities of planning and executing such a step in the project.

Members debated the feasibility of moving forward with the abatement without having conceptual plans and detailed cost estimates in hand. The importance of gathering comprehensive information before making a decision was a point of consensus. The committee also acknowledged the importance of consulting with various departments to assess their specific office space and storage needs.

In addition to the abatement, the committee delved into the timing of bidding for construction. There was a preference expressed for bidding in December or January, which was perceived as an opportunity to secure competitive prices from contractors. Concerns about the procurement process, particularly for electrical equipment, were also raised. It was deemed essential to maintain water, power, and heating throughout the abatement process to prevent any disruptions or additional costs.

The committee planned a site visit to the building to evaluate its condition firsthand. This visit was seen as a critical activity that would provide valuable insights into the scope and requirements of the abatement process.

In addition to the physical aspects of the project, the committee addressed the administrative procedures, including the selection of a designer and the anticipated timeline for the project. Discussions about the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) were geared towards establishing a schedule and defining the deliverables for both the RFQ and the abatement timeline. The question of whether to form a subcommittee to review designer bids was raised, with some hesitancy due to reappointments and the necessity for a fourth member.

The topic of a space request from an outside entity was broached, with members voicing concerns about the project’s scope and the implications of potential rental situations.

Furthermore, the committee touched on the request for veterans’ housing, which prompted a request for more information and a cautious approach, given the potential impact on the project’s scope and resources. The involvement of department heads was debated, with members deliberating the timing of their engagement relative to the architect’s onboarding.

The committee’s discussions culminated in plans for the immediate next steps, which included the distribution of the RFQ and the coordination of the upcoming site visit. The scheduling of the next meeting was also a priority, with the committee aiming to align it with the timeline provided by the architect to avoid any delays in the project’s momentum.