The committee devoted significant time to the kitchen’s redesign, debating its future function and the current state of its plumbing. Questions arose about whether existing plumbing could support a dishwasher positioned on the far right of the kitchen. Concerns about potential chaos if the original plumbing layout wasn’t integrated prompted calls for a detailed review. There was mutual agreement that any changes involving the kitchen’s plumbing should align with the long-term vision for the space rather than being temporary fixes.

The installation of a grease trap was proposed as a necessary measure to prevent future issues. Members stressed that any interim office setup in the kitchen should not disrupt the existing configuration. Maintaining access to essential fixtures, such as electrical panels and mechanical rooms, was deemed critical, and the need for a detailed inspection of the leech field was reiterated. Given its extended period of disuse, the system’s reliability was questioned. Discussions highlighted the lack of a water meter for the Council on Aging and discrepancies in water flow requirements for different facility areas, which complicated assessments of the leech field’s capacity. The possibility of using the kitchen as an emergency shelter further emphasized the need for a robust water and waste management system.

The committee considered excavation to assess the leech field’s condition, weighing the benefits of proactive inspection against the associated costs and potential delays. Accurate data on the system’s functionality was deemed vital, with suggestions to involve additional expertise to facilitate the excavation process. The committee acknowledged that understanding the leech field’s status would influence renovation decisions, particularly if plans for the kitchen’s conversion proceed.

The conversation then shifted to concerns about hazardous materials within the building. Although current testing covered only the renovation area, there was a push for a comprehensive survey to address older sections of the structure. The committee discussed the budget implications of removing hazardous materials, with an expected cost of around $24,000 for the renovation zone alone. Misunderstandings about the specific areas involved led to a broader dialogue on the importance of thorough abatement throughout the building.

Window replacements were another point of debate. The cost-effectiveness of replacing all windows was questioned, especially if the building might not be fully utilized soon. The committee proposed obtaining two sets of pricing options—full and partial replacements—to aid in future planning and budgeting.

HVAC and lighting considerations were also addressed, with a consensus that only occupied spaces should receive heating and air conditioning. However, the need to prevent issues like burst pipes in unoccupied sections was acknowledged. The committee emphasized the importance of maintaining minimal functionality for storage purposes while considering potential future uses of the building, such as office space for start-up businesses.

Discussion turned to the overall readiness of the building for future developments. It was agreed that systems should accommodate the entire 44,000 square feet to ensure flexibility for future needs. Regular meetings were proposed to keep the project on track, with an emphasis on staying within budget constraints while preparing for various potential scenarios.