A key discussion centered around the committee’s pursuit of funding opportunities, particularly an ADA grant that could potentially bring in $250,000. However, the town currently does not qualify for this grant due to the absence of an approved grievance procedure. Committee members planned to rectify this issue by securing the necessary approval the following Monday, enabling them to submit for the grant next year. The potential funding would aid in advancing the building project currently budgeted at $5.686 million.

Members expressed their frustration with the lack of communication from local legislators, a concern that has persisted due to unresponsive past outreach efforts. There was a clear sentiment that legislators viewed the project as uncertain, prompting the committee to consider drafting letters to reestablish contact and involve the select board to lend authority to their requests. The idea was to leverage the select board’s influence to solicit guidance and support from legislators, emphasizing the importance of their engagement.

The committee explored various funding avenues, including federal grants. There was an acknowledgment of an assistant to a legislator who might provide insights on these opportunities. Additionally, the Mass Save program was identified as a potential resource for improving energy efficiency, with the committee noting its applicability to insulation and window improvements due to their status as a green community.

On the topic of infrastructure, emphasis was placed on the adequacy of the building’s electrical service and the need for fire suppression systems. The committee debated the potential long-term implications of current decisions on electrical infrastructure, recognizing that a second service installation would not be permitted later.

The conversation around the project’s scope highlighted financial constraints, with discussions on whether to address only the north wing of the building. This led to considerations about occupancy load and the potential need to reduce bathroom facilities, especially with the absence of additional assembly use from the Council on Aging. The dialogue underscored the challenge of balancing immediate needs with future expansion considerations within the constraints of the budget.

A revised budget figure of $5.686 million was presented, accounting for previously expended costs, including a $30,000 expenditure for tank removal. This prompted discussions on next steps, with a consensus on the need to engage engineers to evaluate cost-effective approaches for essential systems like electrical, fire protection, and HVAC. The committee recognized the importance of having a clear understanding of must-have versus optional features, particularly in light of potential future funding.

The committee also considered the possibility of engaging with Innabus, a company that had previously provided proposals for HVAC and lighting solutions. The discussion raised concerns about adhering to public procurement laws and whether pursuing the proposals without a competitive bidding process would be permissible.