The most pressing topic was the senior center’s flooring issues, which have persisted despite initial repair efforts. Committee members discussed the problematic cupping and delamination of the floors, attributing these issues to possible installation errors rather than material defects. Forbo, the flooring manufacturer, was involved in assessing the problem, while CJM, the installer, proposed a fix involving caulking and re-rolling the flooring. However, committee members were skeptical of this approach, describing it as “trashy” and expressing doubts about its effectiveness.

To address these concerns, the committee decided to allow CJM to demonstrate their proposed solution on a trial basis using a section of flooring from attic stock. This would enable the committee to evaluate the repair’s durability in a high-traffic area. Members emphasized the importance of a unified approach with both the manufacturer and designer to ensure that the repair meets the committee’s standards. Gathering additional information and maintaining a representative presence during the mockup process were deemed critical for achieving a satisfactory outcome.

In a related issue, the committee addressed the omission of plugs in floor boxes within the vestibule area of another municipal building. The lack of infrastructure for plug installation, particularly for holiday decorations, was revealed to match the original design drawings. This prompted further investigation into whether the omission was intentional or an oversight. The committee sought a rough order of magnitude from a contractor other than Griffin to avoid potentially high costs, and Randy O’Grady was identified as already looking into the matter.

On the financial front, the committee explored tax credit opportunities linked to the solar photovoltaic (PV) system installed at the senior center. A meeting between the town’s finance director and a representative from Tax Savers revealed that the town had not previously declared a tax year to the IRS. This allowed the committee to proceed with a calendar year declaration, a step in determining eligibility for tax credits. The committee identified a funding source to cover the estimated $4,000 cost for necessary tax documentation, which could yield a return of approximately $50,000 to $55,000. Additionally, a $100,000 state earmark was secured, which would not affect the rebate process.

The meeting also included updates on the Shaker Lane project, with interviews for proposals from shortlisted teams scheduled for the following week. Although the Shaker Lane project is now managed by a different committee, the Building Committee continues to monitor its progress. Meanwhile, a warranty walkthrough for a property on King Street was scheduled for late spring, with evaluations being reviewed to ensure all parties are in agreement.

In terms of routine financial approvals, the committee reviewed and approved a revised invoice for LLB work at the police station, reducing the amount from $3,850 to $3,500 after negotiations. This decision passed unanimously in a roll call vote.