Hallowell committee pares design options, asks council to approve fundraising plan

The Hallowell Multigenerational Building Committee reviewed a list of scope reductions and design alternates on Sept. 18 and voted to ask the town council to approve a previously proposed fundraising program while the town administrator completes a parallel cost review.

Committee members spent more than two hours on a line-by-line review of design-development items aimed at reducing the project’s estimated cost. The group discussed removing or deferring features including a commercial-grade kitchen, portions of the audiovisual and security systems, several exterior architectural accents, and site plantings. Committee members and the project architect also flagged several items that are costly to remove and costly to restore later — notably the sprinkler system and some structural/roof items.

The review matters because the project team is trying to bring the design toward a target budget while preserving features that affect long-term usability and maintenance. Committee members repeatedly said they want to present a single reconciled list to the town administrator and then to the council so elected officials can decide whether to move forward into construction documents or pursue other financing options.

Most discussion centered on specific dollar items and what could be deferred or funded through donations. The committee noted several line items and savings estimates discussed during the meeting: the design-development total was described in the packet as roughly $7.2 million before alternates; a set of deduct alternates would reduce that total but still leave a roughly $1.8–$2.3 million gap to the committee’s $4.0 million reference point if all proposed deletions were accepted. The transcript captured several discrete amounts discussed as examples: a $60,000 saving if the project used residential (noncommercial) kitchen finishes rather than commercial fixtures, an approximate $104,000 line for the sprinkler system, about $90,000 in site demo work potentially saved if the Department of Public Works completes remaining demolition, and a 1,200-square-foot patio that could be reduced or deferred.

Committee members and the architect, Jeremy of BH Plus A, stressed that some items are inexpensive to defer and later add (for example, some interior finishes, AV wiring conduits, and landscaping), while others — sprinklers, major mechanical/wiring infrastructure, and certain roof details — are more expensive or impractical to add later without affecting building performance or warranties. The architect noted tradeoffs such as the effect on warranties if lower-cost roof assemblies are chosen and that some equipment (for example, an operable partition with sound rating) has structural and electrical interfaces that increase the cost of later reinstallation.

Public comment before the review included a presentation from Parks and Recreation Commission member Missus Lilly, who urged locating the community garden in full sun, conducting heavy‑metal soil testing through an outside lab (she cited UMass as a likely lab because URI does not perform that testing), and including raised beds and accessible beds for seniors. “If it comes back that there’s anything in the soil that’s problematic … we would have to go up onto raised beds,” Lilly said, adding that the garden volunteers would like a drip irrigation option and an enclosed storage area for tools.

The committee agreed to compile its recommended deduct alternates and send them to the town administrator for comparison with the administrator’s ongoing review, with the goal of presenting a unified recommendation to the council. Several members urged the committee be authorized to pursue fundraising and community outreach to restore items removed for budget reasons; they said targeted fundraising could pay for specific features (for example, benches, signage, the patio or specialty finishes) so those items could be added back without tapping the capital budget.

On a motion to ask the town council to approve the committee’s previously proposed fundraising program, the committee recorded a second and voted in favor. The transcript records the motion, a second, and multiple “Aye” responses; no negative or abstaining votes were recorded on the audio. The committee clerk did not announce named vote tallies in the transcript. The committee chair said the administration will be asked to prepare a memo detailing any implications — for example, whether adding a shower and standby generator to qualify the building as an emergency shelter would open additional grant opportunities — before the council acts.

Next steps: committee members asked the administrator to complete a combined review of the committee’s deduct list and the administration’s recommendations and to present that reconciled material at the committee’s next meeting, tentatively scheduled for Oct. 2. The architect said design-document completion would take about two months after receiving formal approval to proceed into construction documents.