A substantial portion of the meeting was dedicated to the discussion of securing funds for the senior center project. The committee examined five primary funding options, including tax overrides and one-time monies for the feasibility study, lease, and outfitting costs for a new temporary center. The feasibility study emerged as a central topic, with members acknowledging its importance in understanding the current and projected demand for services and space requirements for the senior center. Concerns were raised regarding the current facility’s condition, with particular attention to the roof and access issues, which underscored the urgency of exploring alternative solutions.

The committee debated the timing and process of securing funds, discussing the possibility of seeking funds in the fall. The debate extended to the amount of funds needed for the feasibility study and potential operating tax overrides. A suggestion was made to seek legislative support for an earmark, with a member emphasizing the need to structure a specific proposal for the earmark request to present to legislators. The establishment of a working group to plan site visits to other senior centers and document findings for future comparisons was also agreed upon, with the aim of gathering insights to inform the feasibility study.

Another issue addressed was the funding and maintenance of the senior center, with the challenges of allocating funds for capital expenses coming to the forefront. The town’s reliance on free cash to meet urgent needs was highlighted, along with the $150 million backlog in project requests from various town departments. Concerns about the impact on other essential town projects and the prioritization between different departmental needs were emphasized. The potential impact of these financial decisions on the future location of the senior center, whether to continue leasing or to build a new facility, was also discussed.

The committee addressed the review of documents for public availability, with concerns raised about specific documents related to the Mill and Main proposal and the potential impact on future competitive bidding processes. Differing opinions emerged on whether the documents provided a competitive advantage to Mill and Main, leading to an eventual approval of the list of documents for publication.

The FAQ page for the senior center was also a topic of debate, with members expressing concerns about the inclusion of cost information for specific programs and classes. The discussion touched on the range of costs for various activities and the potential impact on public perception. While some members were wary of potential exposure and the need for transparency, the committee decided to include a range of costs for certain classes and programs. The debate continued over whether to specify prices or use general terms like “free” or “affordable,” and concerns were raised about potential changes in prices causing confusion for participants.

Further questions were raised about the FAQ document, including the insufficiency of the current Senior Center, square footage recommendations, and the exploration of existing town-owned buildings for the Senior Center’s future. The committee sought to clarify whether their position was solely on building a new facility or if other options could be considered. This led to a discussion about the inclusion of a community center in the plans for the senior center and the wording of the document, with considerations on the use of “standards” versus “guidelines.” The committee deliberated on whether to give the working group the power to finalize and publish the document without a vote for each edit, which was ultimately approved.