A major topic of discussion was the project’s estimated costs, which exceeded the targeted $4 million construction budget by approximately $600,000. This discrepancy prompted an in-depth examination of possible cost reductions, with a focus on civil site plans and construction approaches. The committee acknowledged the challenge of trimming approximately $1.2 million from the upper estimates while maintaining the building’s quality and compliance with safety regulations. Members discussed various options for achieving cost efficiency, such as reorienting the main entry to the north end of the building and reworking the lower parking lot layout to minimize paving and grading expenses.

In an effort to address budget constraints, the committee explored design changes, including integrating the pump house as an addition off the driveway instead of as a separate structure. This modification was considered alongside a proposal to replace multiple bathrooms with single-user facilities at the driveway’s end. The floor plan, largely based on version C, aimed to eliminate unnecessary interior partitions and reduce the number of windows.

The design discussions also centered on maintaining accessible entry points. The proposed sidewalk to the building’s upper level became a point of focus, as it would secure compliance with these requirements. These considerations were complemented by future discussions on appropriate signage and wayfinding to enhance building access and navigation.

Further deliberations addressed the enhancement of natural light within the structure while considering cost-effective solutions. The committee debated the potential flattening of existing sloped ceilings in classrooms to allow for less expensive lighting fixtures. This change raised concerns about the impact on the building’s aesthetic qualities. A consensus emerged that modifications could offer cost-effective solutions without compromising essential elements like light fixtures and sprinkler systems, which are integral to the building’s layout.

Attention was also given to the number of doors in the building, with a focus on reducing unnecessary ones to streamline access and reduce costs. The average cost per door, noted at around $2,000, drove discussions on eliminating doors in non-essential areas, such as the plan review section, while ensuring security and code compliance.

Discussions on bathroom facilities revealed a debate over the inclusion of unisex bathrooms. The committee weighed the costs against the immediate need for these facilities, considering them as budget alternates that could be integrated if funds allowed. Additionally, cost-effective alternatives for entrance doors were proposed, substituting aluminum storefront systems with insulated metal doors featuring glass vision panels, resulting in notable savings.

The committee also evaluated the layout of the building, particularly the positioning of the Town Administrator’s office. Two layout options were presented, with suggestions to relocate the office closer to the new entry while minimizing extensive renovations. This move was expected to yield significant savings, estimated between $150,000 and $300,000, by reducing the overall renovation area.

The conversation extended to the technical aspects of water supply, specifically the proposed placement of the pump house and the associated costs. Concerns were raised about the cost-effectiveness of building an addition for the pump house versus renovating existing spaces. Discussions highlighted the logistical issues related to water supply routes and the potential benefits of integrating the pump house within the building to mitigate noise and space concerns.

As the meeting concluded, the committee faced logistical considerations about future meetings, including the potential move to the Westwood School. Concerns about public access, liability, and insurance implications were discussed.