 Yeah, I think. Okay, Jonathan, so we are, we are. And I'm alive and I've turned, I'm turning it over to you now that we've, we're technically, we're technically okay as well. So I'll say good morning. It is Friday, July 28. It's after nine in the morning and this is the sustainability subcommittee for the elementary school building committee. And I will call us to order. And I don't know if we have a digital version of the agenda. I'm able to read it from a paper copy I printed out, but. Jonathan, I can pull it up if I have a question. I just need permission for screen sharing. Okay. I can do that. It's basically one agenda item. Yeah. It's very brief. Can everybody see that? Yes. Yeah. So, yeah, we're, so the, we're going to discuss the, the approach to meeting the requirements of the peer review process as it's been proposed as part of the answer advisory contract. And then we'll have public, I will have discussion and public comments. Yeah. And so given the brevity of this. Margaret, I think you or Shelly will start. Yes. So why don't I take the lead here. I'm, I just want to sort of give some background. For the committee. So, and you will all remember that the issue, this issue about the peer review process has been, has been raised during the course of the process, especially in the sustainability subcommittee. So just to summarize. So the new bylaw requires that all new buildings developed by the town comply and this school project is the first. That will be undertaken under the bylaw. The new bylaw also requires a peer review process, but that process is not defined other than to note that the project needs to be reviewed during construction document phase. For confirmation that it is indeed meeting a net zero standard. As of today, the town hasn't yet developed what this peer review process will look like. But typically this type of process could be. What do I say, sort of developed in one of three ways. So the town can develop a process itself. This is, you know, just talking about how municipal processes work. The town could develop a process itself. The town could draft an RFP and publicly advertise for a consultant. Or the town could provide it as part of a service. Of an existing contract that is sort of already, you know, kind of another consultant already under contract. So the logic, the reason that I. Proposed this to the town, this approach to the town is. Partly grounded in the fact that the OPM is already required by, by our, we're required by our contract to provide review of the design documents. That's part of the MSBA base contract scope. And it would be a typical responsibility of any OPM contract. We have to provide quality control on a whole range of aspects of design and construction. And we are intentionally independent of the designer. So it may look like we're sort of working hand in hand with them. And we are, but I would say it is a collaboration where we are sort of independent parts of a process. So we act as an extension of the owner. And the range of services we provide is often adjusted to the project's needs. So I recommended to the town that we provide a, a, what I would call a pilot peer review process. Because the project is actually moving quite quickly at this point. The other two options I mentioned. So town developing a process or town advertising, take a significant amount of time and staff time and funds to develop and procure. So I'm going to turn this over to Shelly in a minute, just to sort of get into the nitty gritty of what we proposed a little bit. So the peer review process, as it's described in the bylaw does require construction documents to align with whatever peer review is in place. However, if you wait until the construction document phase, and I think you've heard this from the Dinesco folks. By the time they're doing construction documents, they're going to have to put all the pieces of the puzzle have to be in place. And were we to wait until construction document phase to put a peer review process in place. The, and, and changes were required. I'm not concerned about it in this project, but I think it's a concern potentially for future projects. If you did that. If you did that, if you did the design team to make changes in the construction documents, that would be cause for additional services because you would be changing the scope of the work after the design development process was confirmed. So, you know, I think the way I think about this is, I do not think that this peer review process is the, the last and final. I mean, what is proposed here by Amherst is actually fairly unique. I mean, I don't think that the town could use to build off of. So that was why we proposed because Shelly has been a part of the project from the beginning. Knows all the players understand the scope. That she would be a good person too. As a, an additional service to our contract. Provide. Create a draft of the peer review. In collaboration with the team and the town. And then we'll be able to complete what is proposed as the checklist. So we're going to stop talking for a minute. Yeah, it looks like. We've got a question from Sean. Oh, okay. Thanks, Jonathan. Shelly feel free to just include this as part of your response. If you want. I think it'd be helpful for me to understand how the peer review differs from commissioning because we're going to have commissioning on this project anyway. So commissioning is a process. So commissioning is a process. Which is just to make sure. That the building envelope and the building systems. Are. Installed. As a process. Yeah. So that's a great question. So the first thing I'll say is. The commissioning has nothing to do with that zero. So commissioning is a process. Which is just to make sure. That the building envelope and the building systems. Are. Installed as they were designed and are functioning at their optimum level, but there is no tie between the commissioning process. And the net zero process, the net zero process is looking at the energy consumption of the building and how that. How that energy is where that energy source is coming from. That's a good segue. And so I'm going to walk into just kind of what we're going to talk about. What we're going to talk about. What we're going to talk about. What we're going to talk about. It is complicated. There are a lot of players. There are a lot of pieces. And so I'm going to make this as simple as I can. And what role that I have been playing. We'll continue to play. Through answer. On the owner side. You know, not even. And then get into like what is. What is it to create this. Pilot. Process for the Amherst. That can be replicated later on. So I'm going to start with the project and then move more generally to that. I'm going to start with the design team. I'm going to start with the design team. And the way this project's meeting that zero. First of all, through the design team, there's a net zero energy consultant. That's Thornton Thomas. They are currently, as we speak, running an energy model that has to do two things. Ultimately to meet the project requirements. One is they're working with ever source. To meet the mass save EUI requirements. Right. So they're confirming that via. They have to meet the Teddy compliance path. For energy code compliance. And these two things are. It's tricky. Teddy. All of our sources. Are reporting that Teddy has been. Challenging. It's a fairly new process. And so they've reported out that they're having some difficulty with that they've gotten help with the state. They've moved through it. But that has little to do with net zero either. Right. So they're, they're working through those complications. Now, the reason that I bring this up is that in the energy model, what they're doing is they're dialing in. They're optimizing the building envelope and systems relative to one another. Hopefully to determine the most efficient cost effective way. To meet the EUI targets. And then that zero targets of this building. So what ideally is happening is that say, for example, they're running different insulation levels in the walls to see how that affects system sizing and whatnot to come up with our, on a cost basis, what's going to be our best path forward. That's ideally what's happening right now as we speak. There's no one outside of the design team currently reviewing that process. That's what our proposal does. Is we review their energy modeling inputs and outputs to make sure that the inputs, the inputs are consistent. There's just a lot of assumptions about how this building is going to be used that have to go into it. And just, there's a lot of expertise that goes into it in terms of building performance, both on the envelope and the systems, which the team has the design team has. It's just having that peer review set of eyes to confirm and make sure that everything's been thought of has been tried at what this is, is to double check that, put eyes on it, make sure that certain things that the owner might be thinking about that are more how the building's going to be occupied or even being thought about. One thing that I keep bringing up is how is this being tied into the educational processes of the building, which is extremely important. And I'm going to keep pushing it because it will in some ways determine the success of the net zero operation of the building. So to some degree, you know, that thinking would come into reviewing the energy model. Now, the time sensitivity of this is that as, as Margaret was saying, the decisions about what the building envelope is going to be and what the systems are going to be lighting and everything has to occur by the end of DD. There can be minor changes and updates after that. But the reason for that is once you're into construction documents, you're detailing. You are full fledged detailing this thing out and every little change that you make at that point has a ripple effect across the multiple details and multiple sheets. It's not only costly, but it also leads to potential mistakes. Right. And so you want to avoid it at all costs. That means that we really need to get eyes on this energy process and the decision making surrounding this sooner rather than later. I would have preferred to have started this process at 100% SD. We've missed that. We're now halfway at least through DD. And, you know, we really, it is urgent. We need to start seeing what's going into the model and reflecting on what's in the drawings. Okay. So that's the urgency part of it. Now, once we get. To at the end of DD and we've just all agreed upon, all right. This is the building. This is the basis of design that we're going to proceed forward with. It has the best route forward to net zero energy. From there forward, the net zero energy consultant services coming through the design team stop. At 100% DD. The commissioning agents. And the MSBA commissioning agent then steps in. Looks at that 100% document and what the new basis of design is based on the energy modeling. And as Margaret described what they're going to be doing from there on out at 60% CD and 90% CD. And then on and through the construction process is just verifying that the team is doing what they said they were going to do. Now, because the project requirements does include an aggressive data, But they're not going to be doing it. They're going to be doing it. They are going to be doing a review. And it doesn't include, it does include net zero energy to a degree. They are going to be looking at that, but it's just one of a million things that they're going to be verifying. They aren't specifically. Focused on that zero energy. There is overlap between the review that they will be doing. And the review that my team will be doing. However, it's the perspective with which. And there's things that I understand having been in the owner's process from the beginning that I know maybe aren't in the documents, maybe should be in the documents. So there's outside sort of pressures that I can bring to the table that a CX agent will never bring to the table. CX agents are pretty much hands off with the owner. They're what they're going by is the construction documents solely. Yeah, just to be clear. So CX is the sort of industry abbreviation of commission. Thank you. So commissioning agent. Thank you. I appreciate that. So the commissioning agents typically don't interact with the owner ever. They're behind the scenes and they're just doing verification and they're important. They're extremely important, particularly when you get into construction. More so that than I would say during the CD development phase because then they're really checking in the field to make sure things were installed properly or working properly and all those things. And that's critical. So you do need them to be involved earlier so that they know what it is they're gonna be checking in the field. Our job is a peer review, architect to architect peer review on behalf of the owner. And I'm specifically looking at net zero. There's other people on the Andrew team who will be looking at other aspects of the design. But what I'm looking for specifically are, let's say, I'm gonna give you a very specific example. So one of the things that often happens when you have a building you have a certain insulation level that you're aiming for. You have this thing called thermal bridges. And the way I think of a thermal bridge is it's like, insulation is like your coat. It's the coat that the building's wearing and a thermal bridge is a hole in the coat, right? And these happen, they happen. They happen on every building. It's the cold zipper you touch because there's nothing between. The zipper is the only thing between you and the outside air. And there's all sorts of opportunities for them to come into a building. So one of the things that we'll be looking for as a peer reviewer to make sure that we meet the performance goals is are there thermal bridges? Are they significant? How might you address them? I might even, I will be looking through all the drawings in detail, red binding them, making comments and reporting back to the team. And even in some cases making a suggestion as an architect to architect peer review as a collaboration. And it is important to understand that it's not adversarial, it's a collaboration. And so when I bring something to the design team we may then all have a discussion about it or I may just have a direct discussion with them about it. And they might explain, well, we did think about that and we have this limitation and then we may come up with some other solution or whatever it is we decide. So it's a collaboration. And at the end of the day it is the architect of records decision. It is their design. Like I don't take over any of that and cannot take over any of that. It must remain with the architect of record any final decisions. What I'm there for is to assist them by having that extra set of eyes. It helped them as they're dealing with an extreme amount of complexity. Any project has an extreme amount of complexity. This one even more so because of all the players involved. So it is quite easy for something to slip through the cracks I'm there to help to make sure on the net zero front that that doesn't happen. Okay, so that's what the peer review sort of looks like as we go through construction documents phase. Having said that, what Margaret's describing with the master with the Amherst peer review that's required for net zero energy. As mentioned, there is no process that is currently stated. The commissioning agent has a process that has been stated by the MSBA. So they have a whole process with instructions checklists that's all of it they'll be going through. We'll by the way, we've coordinated our checkpoints with theirs so that we also reviewed their reports. We will be reviewing the commissioning agent in addition to the design team. Because again, we're the ones who are gonna be focusing on this net zero point, right? So they already have like their checklist and what would make sense for Amherst for the town is to have a similar sort of process outlined, but there isn't one. The commissioning agents is very, it's general to any project. It's not about net zero projects. So there isn't one. What we'll be doing is kind of as we go through our process documenting it, like and making it, how do we relay this information that we're going through into a simple form that someone on a future project can then replicate. So it makes all the sense in the world to me that we would use this as an opportunity to develop that sort of checklist so that later on, and we'll be thinking too, like, all right, if someone else has to do this later, what instructions do they need? What do they need to know? And also what expertise do they need to bring to the table? Well, I'll make a recommendation to you at the end, like of when you put this up or RFP on future projects, what type of qualifications you should be looking for. Now, and do they need to be someone with a lot of net zero experience, building science experience, et cetera? Or could we get it to be simple enough that any architect or engineer could walk through the process successfully and maybe learn something from it, which would be amazing too. So I'll be thinking through that as we move through the process, but really it's about using what, this is an opportunity based on what we will already be doing and need to do in order to meet ANZR's requirements of peer reviewing this project and making it replicable for all the projects for the town of Amherst so that then you can actually put out an RFP and say, here's the process. This is what we expect you to go through and then whoever's responding to their RFP is like, okay, I'll look through this and we'll be able to give you a good bid on what it would take for them to do it. Okay, so that I think is the general overview of what our proposal includes all of those services. And I think with that, I'll turn it back over to the committee for questions unless Margaret, you have something to add to anything I said. No, I think that's, I think that's good. And John, I just want to suggest you read out, you make sure all of our committee members, we know Sean can hear us, but I see that Rupert's here because we do have a question and we have four members of the public, Bruce Caldman, Chris Riddle, Maria Pepe, and Rudy Perkins. So, and then we also have Phoebe. So just letting people know who's in the room that you can't see. Yep, man, I can't quite see what you can see. So thank you for doing that. Cause I can't see the attendees. Sean's got his hand up. Shelly, what would be the final product when you're done? Will there be like a before stamps, you know, I know there's going to be checklist and there's going to be the process, but for the actual peer review itself, will there be some sort of summary of yes, the survive opinion, you know, we'll produce the zero building? Yeah, so well at each of the phases that we'll be looking at it and I think what we have in our proposal, we had 100% SD, we've already passed that mark. We have 50% TD, 100% TD, 60% CD, 100% CD. Each of those checkpoints, we will not only redline the drawings, which will be part of what we submit back to you all, also a report that summarizes any issues that we found and corrective actions that potentially need to be taken and suggestions on those. So there's a report that will come out at each of those checkpoints. And then in addition to that on the side, we'll be making this checklist so that it can be replicated. Kathy? So with the beginning checklist, Shelly, would there be an opportunity once we've got this going for you to come back in case anyone sees, well, are you gonna look at this or just to, we will have future net zero. We have to have one with, to figure out how we're meeting Teddy when they finally published. So I'm just sort of that interim before we get this. So that's question number one. And then if you're doing redline and you're doing it at various points, I think the purpose as you've described it would be to the extent there needs to be a different action change that you will have recommended it directly to the design team or the design, you know, and so you will be getting that action without having to come back to us each time. I guess is what I'm looking for is part of it is a checkpoint with the committee and a part of it is an ongoing interaction because we don't wanna see a list at the end that we can't fix. So those are my two questions here. Yeah, and I think we're open to discussion on that. Margaret, you may have some opinions on how to best guide this. The checklist, I think as we develop them, we can put them up for public review, right? Those are things and there are certainly a lot of very knowledgeable architects in the Amherst community who would be great to take a look and give feedback. So that for sure, in terms of how the process works with the redline and the reports, the report for sure I think is that something that you'd wanna share with the public. I don't know if you're gonna wanna share an entire set of documented redlines with everyone. I mean, the architects in the room will probably love to see it. I'm gonna defer that to Margaret and you all in terms of what's the best way to handle that, but it'll be available to you all. And so basically, like there's a, once that report comes out, there's an interchange that has to happen that would include for sure the design team, but in also like the degree to which there's what I'll identify is does the owner need to be involved in this discussion, right? And so when I say like, who's responsible? Who needs to be involved in a decision surrounding something we may have found? If it's something that the owner needs to be involved in, I'll make that clear. There may be, if it's a thermal bridge, you probably don't need to know about it, right? It's getting very detailed. But there are other things where, yeah, it's gonna be like, you could do this or you could do that. We need to double check with the owner to see what their preference is. There will be cases of things like that. There might be cost implication. Well, and personally, I think I anticipate that because of the TETI, which is very focused on thermal bridging, more so than the rebates or the other things. I think we're gonna end up having a lot of discussions in construction documents, which would become part of the sincere documentation about approaches to dealing with that. So for instance, because of the way the MSBA funding is set up, we have a full-time clerk on the project, right? Someone who's actually built energy efficient buildings before. And he is the eyes and ears of the entire team as well as the town during construction. So that guy, Lee Figgins, will have a really big role in this, but there's a question. So the next project, which will probably not be a town project, which will not be a school, will need to think about a standard for how you ensure compliance with something like this building code. We, I feel as though this project is set up well because it includes funding for a full-time clerk. The next project might not have that. So how do you manage that? Become something that can be tackled in the construction document checklist. Yeah, this is all happening at kind of an interesting time from the moment. Yeah, from the perspective of changing codes at the state level. I am very happy and excited that we're gonna have a net zero school, but it's not gonna be quite as cutting edge as it would have been a few years ago because the state's admirably moving the bar on what an average building has to perform to or an average building at this scale has to perform to. The state's not making it net zero yet, but it's, this is that moving to the Teddy model is a significant step towards that. Yeah, but again, the building code, the building model is what you use to get your building permit. The flaw with building codes has always been particularly around energy performance, how the thing actually gets built. You can say there will be no thermal bridging and then- I don't know, there's lots of thermal bridging. There's lots of thermal bridging. So Kathy, you have asked a question. I know that Sean has asked, just wanna check in directly with Rupert C if he had anything particular. Nope, I'm following along, but I don't have any questions at the moment. Okay. Oops, sorry, go ahead, Kathy. No, so I'll just say one more thing is I think this through, so with this peer review, we're looking through the energy modeling is talking about projections of how much energy the building is going to use given what its envelope is given that we have geothermal. And then out of that, this is my simplistic, out of that, it's how many solar panels do we need so that we produce as much out of our panels. It strikes me that what we've got so far in the modeling, free teddy, we may have enough panels since the SD design happened before Teddy. We may have enough panels that we might even produce a surplus, which would be great. My house is producing a surplus. But in your looking at it, if you see that they, you think they've underestimated, for example, how much a kitchen would use or how much the classrooms would use or the technology in the building in terms of kilowatts. I mean, this also affects EUI. The big ticket item in my mind is the $2 million from Eversource that's going toward geothermal. So we really need to hit that. And then it's figuring out, given that, how many panels do we need? So the adjustment might be, we need a few more panels when I really take a look at this because if we're not gonna hit 25, there's a huge cost implication to us and we wanna hit that. So am I right in trying to think through that the adjustment might be a few more panels, but we're hoping we don't do that because that's also reflecting the EUI. So I'll start. Yeah, no, that's perfect. So yes, the energy model is gonna establish what your projected EUI is. And basically, so it's gonna tell you what your annual energy use is, projected. You divide that by square footage and that is your EUI, right? And so ideally I would maybe be a little bit more aggressive than the 25 to give yourself a little legal room. We'll see where they're at and how that's happening. There are, as you go through the energy model, the thing that I think is important to understand that it's a projection based on assumptions about how the building's gonna be used. There's certain things we know and there's certain things we cannot control. The things that we know or what the insulation is gonna be in the building and what the systems are gonna be. We know these things, right? Those are easy, but the schedules for how the building's used and how the system, what the set points are gonna be on the air conditioning system, et cetera. Those are all in play once the building's occupied. And so if the building gets occupied in some different way than the model assumed, then you're gonna get a difference in energy performance. So part of what we'll be checking and we all need to think about as we look at the energy model is are the assumptions correct? Are they as correct as they can be given what we know today? Like in terms, is it gonna be used during the summer? Is it gonna be used after hours? Like those are things that we wanna make sure that we know what has gone into the model. So everyone's very clear on what that projected annual energy use is based on. And then you know if you're gonna diverge from it, all right, that you're gonna have an issue, right? So we're looking at all those things as we do the energy model with the eye that yes, we need to at least meet that EUI of 25 in order to get the mass save rebates. From there, you're correct. Once you have that annual energy use, then you're zeroing out with solar panels, right? And so that's fairly easy to do. It's not, that's not complicated part of this. It's easy to project, easy to do. What I would say is in making those decisions, sometimes when cost is the issue, right? When cost has a play in this, some life cycle cost analysis would typically come into play in that decision. Like what's gonna be cheaper, adding insulation or adding solar panels, just to give you an example, right? And those are also things that could be looked at through the energy model, like all right, if the energy model comes back and it says you need, I'm just gonna throw out a number, a hundred solar panels and then if you added more insulation, you only need 90, right? What you would wanna do is say, all right, what's the cost of that extra insulation versus the cost of those extra solar panels and the cheapest route wins? Because you don't care at the end of the day, you just wanna be net zero, the cheapest route wins. And so I think, and maybe Margaret, you can clarify this. When I looked at Thornton Thomas Setty's Net Zero Energy Consulting, it looked like the life cycle cost analysis that would do that was maybe additional that it wasn't in the core services. And I'm not sure if they're doing it or not. Do you know? They are required to, well, someone on the team must do a life cycle cost analysis. I believe it is Thornton Thomas Setty because they own the energy model. And in fact, they did present fairly early on the differences between the life cycle cost for air source, ground source, a couple of other options, which was fascinating. I thought what that told you about those costs. So they've already done an early version of it, but there will be, I believe, another iteration of it. So Kathy, to your point then, there's always an easy fix to add more solar panels. It's just a matter of money. If you wanna get to the most cost-effective net zero, then we wanna dial all that in as best we can through the energy model with life cycle cost estimating to know what's the cheapest route, inclusive of the solar panels needed to zero it out. And ideally that's completed at the end of design development, right? So we don't have a lot of time. Which is September, right? Rupert, do you have a question? More comment. I just, I really wanna appreciate the comments about the unknowns in all of this modeling. I think it's a big, big, big elephant in the room, how people act in the building, how people use the building, how we educate people about the consequences of their decisions in how they use the building. It's absolutely huge. And I really appreciate Shelly bringing it up and being on it because I think that that's gonna make all the difference. Well, we can engineer the crap out of this building, but we have to figure out how to get buy-in from the people who are using the building to use it in a sustainable way. And that I think is huge. Well, and as Kathy has raised, I think understanding that not everything is within your control. So you need some wiggle room with developing extra capacity if you need it, if the use of the building changes. I mean, one of the sort of core factors here is, we, you know, is climate change and how that's gonna change the need for heating and cooling, it's just not a fixed, it's not a fixed condition at this point. And so you still wanna be able to have a net zero building even if climate change over the 50 year anticipated life of the building changes how much energy you need to function. Yeah, and I would say that both of those points are key for this being successful, having some wiggle room with extra capacity and making operating at net zero a part of the DNA of everyone who occupies this building. And that comes to how does it get integrated into the education that's happening there? With schools, it's kind of, it gives you that opportunity to do that that isn't necessarily there and other building types. So take every advantage of it. You know, and I think we need to continue to have that conversation of how does that get integrated into the educational programs. So that it just becomes second nature, right? It's just you're doing it and you would never think of doing it differently than the way the building needs to be occupied in order to achieve that net zero. And there's good feedback loops. There has to be very strong feedback loops. Because as humans, if we don't have feedback, it's out of sight, out of mind and we don't even know what we're doing or why it's happening. So the feedback loops need to be there and those are built in to the building. And so that's another thing that we will be kind of looking at, you know, in terms of the way it's metered and then that is integrated into, again, educational programming. John? I should probably know this, but do we, does this building have the ability to monitor classroom by classroom energy consumption? Thinking more about what Rupert said, a lot of it's new behavior. I know that's pretty granular, but it would go a long way with, you know, being able to monitor their spikes and something or somebody's doing something differently. I mean, I know there's technology out there now with smart plugs and things like that where you can get that data. Is that, do you know if that's part of this project already or if you're coming to the Center? We've had discussions about it, about the metering and everyone knows that it's important, but to my knowledge, we haven't come up with a plan yet on how it's going to be metered. And again, this does tie into the educational conversation because if you were to, like the reason for sub metering classrooms would be that then you can have classroom to classroom competitions about energy use, for example, or you would know, like, that gives you a very strong feedback loop of, oh, today we all in this classroom use X amount of energy and our target was something else, right? And so that's a very strong feedback loop. Sometimes you do it by floor, sometimes you do it by section of building, there's different ways that can be set up, but that's a conversation that this committee needs to have and give direction back to the design team. I don't think that there's been a clear direction on that yet. Yeah, and then also for Rupert to have the mechanical systems in a way where if one of them isn't working as intended or he's an optimal, they do send him some sort of notice that it's using more energy than regular. Yeah, so the thing I'll add to what Shelley said is, so the building will have what's called a BMS, the building management system. And there's like a huge scale of what you can do with the building management system. And there's a trade-off between the number of devices and wiring you need to provide, you can monitor every room, right? But there's a price associated with it because you're putting devices and wiring in every room. And then there's much more simple ones. One of the things that we've often seen, for instance, is, and it's been driven by the lead process that many, let me say electrical engineers, again, trying to be responsive to lead will specify a very high level of lighting control, sort of automated lighting control. And then that can backfire because people override it, don't use it. So all of these things about how energy is monitored and tracked require kind of dialing to each community and school and school community. And we haven't touched on that discussion yet at all. But part of the reason is that relative to the decisions about what the building wall is made of and how many windows there are and what the roofing is and all that was saying, all the electric do-hickies are really easy to add and to price. So that is typically a construction document issue, which is why it hasn't been brought up yet. But Sean, I do agree. It's a really important point. It's just important to understand about it. There isn't like a fixed approach. It's a scale and there's costs associated with a scale and you have to kind of match it up with what your communities needs. Well, if all the folks on the subcommittee have had a chance to ask questions, I am inclined to open it up for public comments. And I can't necessarily see who might already have a hand up. Okay. I've got, Angela's made me the power person here. So I will bring in Chris Riddle's hand was up and I brought Chris. Chris, I brought you in and I think if you unmute, you're with us. Am I with you? Yes, you are. I'm very impressed with Sean and her depth of knowledge and her recommendations here. This seems like a quality response to what in our bylaw should have been more worked out in detail. No question about that. I think we need to figure this out for the next one. And Riddle, they want to comment on this because I'm really getting this from Riddle. Shall we tell whether the bylaw, I'm sorry, can you, how can you tell whether the handling based on the energy money provided by the city, how do you be able to verify whether it's right or not? Things that we were thinking was that it was sort of implicit on what we're asking you to say to us, does it work or doesn't it work? Is it hitting the tire? Is it hitting the tire? Isn't it? How am I able to say that to us without you itself? Running the independent energy model. That's the question. Okay, yes, thank you. So yeah, I wish that I had an answer that could say I could certify it and I could tell you for sure that this energy model is dead on but nobody can actually do that, right? What we can do and what we will do is look very closely at the inputs to the model and then based on our experience, look at the outputs to make sure that they look like they are reasonable for a building of the size and the design and what we're seeing in the design. I don't recommend running a separate energy model. First of all, that would be expensive. It's expensive to run them and it takes a lot of time. So we don't have the time to do it first of all within the project constraints, we're too late for that but I wouldn't have recommended it in the first place particularly not with Teddy being as complicated as it has been. There's just so many inputs that go into a model that need to be integrated and discussed with the design team that it's just not really feasible first of all to replicate that process. Like we couldn't do it independently of the design team. We'd have to have every discussion with the design team that the energy modeling team is currently having with them and those are extensive. It's not a small matter. It's complex, it's complicated and there's so many inputs that go into what that model is and it's very collaborative. So replicating it doesn't make sense. I've never seen that happen before but what you do wanna do and what we will do is really check the inputs. Energy modeling, the saying is garbage in, garbage out. And so if the inputs aren't correct or aren't well thought out or aren't realistic then the outputs that you get is not a very good prediction of whether or not the building is gonna meet the EUI and it's important to remember that the model is a prediction. It can never say that for sure it's going to meet it. It's just the best prediction that we can get based on the information that's available and the climate information that's available at this time. So I wish I could say there's a way that anybody could certify that for sure this building is gonna be net zero but nobody can. I can't, the design team can't, the net zero energy consultant, the commissioning agent, nobody can say that. What we can do is set you up as best we can, all of us working collaboratively for that success so that you know these are the parameters, these are the things you need to be aware of that are gonna help you to meet net zero and so that you have in your mind, hey, if we change our operating schedule, we may then be harming our net zero performance like so that that's known, it's not a surprise, right? And that, yes, that there are systems in place for monitoring to make sure that systems are working properly and that there is some, for Rupert, there is something that happens, it informs them, oh, wait a minute, all of a sudden the system is using a lot more energy than it was. I need to look at that, right? So you wanna have those checks and balances in place too, just to make sure things are running properly, but that's the best that we can do. And I think just having experience with these things and being able to look at the model, we'll have a sense for whether or not the inputs are reasonable and particularly relative to what the owner's project requirements are and then whether the outputs are also looking reasonable relative to those inputs. As I call it, I like the idea of legal room very much and you will help us to set margins in the both the performance of this PV and the demands from the system that will give us some sort of margin for error there. And then when you're participating and developing what those margins should be. Yes, I think all those discussions we will be involved in and give advice on that. And I think that is a very good discussion to have as we've already started having here is what is the flexibility here? What's, have some sort of buffer zone? And that is definitely a discussion that we'll participate in and advise on. Thank you, that's all I have. Jonathan, I just wanna make one remark because I'm not sure everyone knows but Thornton Thomas Setty is also the modeling team that EverSourced is contracting with for determining whether we do EUI. So we're paying them twice once through Dinesco, but then Sean, I'm correct, right? That we had a separate payment because they have to verify for the two million for geothermal. So the fact that they chose that team I think is says a lot about the confidence in this team. So Sean, I'm correct, right? That's part of the deal for getting the incentives is you have to work with their technical assistance component and they pay half, we pay half. And they, yeah, that's the consultant that they provided. Okay, we have a second person, Bruce. I've brought you into the room. I think, yes. I was, actually I put my hand up fairly late in the piece assuming that Rudy would have had his hand up already because I'm kind of thinking that I want to hear what Rudy has to say, but is Rudy's, can I ask if Rudy's hands up or is he? No, at your encouragement, his hand just went up, but it's... Well, look, I'll say something briefly and then I'd probably put my hand up again. But the two things I'll say briefly are I applaud the answer that Shelley gave. You don't always get honest answers from consultants who say, you know, I really can't say this, I don't know this. And so characterizing your statement, Shelley, I'll say that basically it was all care and no responsibility. And that sounds a bit cavalier, but I really want to come down on the care side of this because when I've seen you here before and you've spoken and I don't know Jacob well, Jacob Raskussen because he's a generation after me in the Nessie crowd. But I will say this to everybody, that Jacob and I guess two of his colleagues about four years ago gave a Nessie building energy keynote address on understanding and mitigating carbon footprints in the building industry. I think that's more or less the characterization and it was brilliant. And one of the few standing ovations, I think that's ever been given to a Nessie and there's been a lot of them. I've been to these conferences pretty much every year for 35 years up until five years ago. This was the best keynote that I've ever seen. And I think it was the best keynote that most people who've been there that long that they've ever seen, it was brilliant. And why am I saying this? I'm saying this because Jacob and his crowd and Shelley care. They care. And so all care from somebody who really cares is a big deal. So that would be one of the reasons why I think I'm very much in support of the proposition that Kathy, I think you and the committee put forward, which is to choose this route to achieving the net zero peer review compliance as governed by the bylaw. I think it's an outstandingly wonderful thing that we have this opportunity to do it this way. The other piece I'll say just for now is that the wiggle room that Chris was talking about and others have been talking about. Kelly, I don't know whether you've seen or anybody has seen really a memo about a four or five page memo that I wrote put up about six months ago, but it's really designed for the construction period. And it has to understanding the use of behavior, flexibilities and vagaries about achieving net zero. Because that's typically been a fairly large fraction of the consumption. And so the wiggle room we have is moving the needle, as Sean was saying in that area, what provisions have we got? Well, there is a discussion and I'm planning to contribute handsomely to it through the construction period to create and understand that wiggle room in terms of the user behavior, maintenance behavior. That's our wiggle room. That's the big portion of our wiggle room. And that's something that we haven't yet got to but I'm ready for that conversation. So those are the two things for now. And I'll put my hand up again if I've got some questions, but they're more perfunctory. Thank you, Bruce. So Rudy, I have brought you in as well. Okay, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. Well, I sent you all detailed comments. So I'm not gonna go through all those, but let me focus on a few points that come out of this discussion particularly. Chris and I have brought up, and I think others, the energy budget that's defined in a key part of the bylaw, which was ignored all through this process and which would have gotten, I think, to the points that Rupert and others have made about how important the end users are and how they use the building in determining whether this is gonna work as a net zero building. And then let me just get technical about the bylaw for a couple of points. In section F of the bylaw, that said, for implementation, the town and the project end users, the project end users, which would basically be the school folks, shall undertake on a good faith basis to formulate a preliminary energy budget for the project consistent with net zero energy requirements prior to schematic design. Of course, that never happened. And I think it's not too late to try to define the energy budget. And I think of it in terms now, obviously it's not, the bylaw is very brief and gives generalities. And we, to a certain extent, with this project, have to decide some things or propose some things. And maybe it will be safer if we agree that this is not a precedent. This is just a pilot. And that the town can is not saying, this is the way we're gonna do it for every project. But one, we've waited too long to do some of the things, like a separate energy model, even if we wanted to do it. And I think we should have been planning to do it. We did two cost reviews on the cost side of it. We didn't say, oh, that's redundant. We can just check the assumptions of the first reviewer. We had at each phase two separate cost reviews done. And I'm sure that took a lot of work and they didn't come out up with exactly the same thing and they had to be reconciled. So I think if we've waited so long, we can't do an independent cost review, or it turns out it's too expensive or there aren't the players out there that could do it, then I think we have to make sure we revisit this question for future projects. Because I think implicit in the bylaw was that there was going to be a fairly rigorous independent third party review, not just somebody checking over what was done by the preliminary model. The bylaw also requires that the peer reviewer confirm in their opinion that the final construction documents will produce a completed project that is zero energy capable. So that's obviously, especially for the peer reviewer, not a guarantee. It's a separate independent peer level review that is, as Shelley has said, an architect to architect kind of review. And that they've confirmed that the definitions, our definitions are different from the TETI or the EUI or whatever, that this will be a zero energy capable building as it's defined there. And there's a few things that have to be met. And I would like to see somewhere in the checklist or the report a definitive statement that the reviewer set found in their opinion, the construction documents if followed will produce a project that is zero energy capable as the bylaw defines that. And I tried to put in my letter of comments a bunch of the elements that are folded into that zero energy capable definition. So I think to comply with the bylaw, first of all, we've sort of messed up by not doing the energy budget at the right time. So we could have had discussions about how the building is going to be used, set points, occupancy, equipment that's going to be plugged into the walls, which keeps getting avoided in the discussion. And that is a major part of what's going to determine the energy use and whether this is a zero energy building. And I just feel like we needed to do that. We should do that. It's not too late to do that. And we should do it in development of the energy budget. So just in summary, one other point, I think it would help a lot if Shelly and her folks put out a draft of this checklist for people to look at and say, oh, now we get. Like when I read through her proposal, I was very unclear on what we were actually going to get. You're obviously not going to do a checklist that's good for all buildings at all times because each building is going to have different EUI targets, different solutions to the net zero question and so forth. The entire station is very different from an elementary school. It's probably very different from a high school. So the checklist is, I think it would be helpful to see what this checklist is going to be and how that's going to be used to be reassured that a definitive opinion about zero energy capable project is issued by the peer reviewer that if we can't do it when we should have, we should do it now in development of an energy budget that looks including at plug blows. And I think if we could find the time and the money to do a separate energy model, that would be good. So thanks so much. And I won't go further, but you guys, I hope got a chance to at least stem through my letter with some of the points. I don't think of a checklist that just reviews. And second, I should also say, you got to define the energy budget or the owner's project energy requirements, very specifically and put that out as a document so that people can really see and the reviewer can see. We can see what's being compared in the basis of design, which also needs to be better defined. So we can understand how the reviewer came to the conclusion that this was a zero energy capable project. And I don't think just comparing the basis of design to whatever the energy requirements were stated by the architect, which hasn't been clearly spelled out anywhere, I don't think that gets you there. Unless you've done the review, to see that it gets you. So that was a big point of my answer. So maybe if Shelly could put out a draft of the checklist at this point, so we can understand better how this is gonna get us to that zero energy capable confirmation in their opinion. It would reassure people like me who worked on the bylaw and people who voted for the bylaw that this is gonna be compliant with the bylaw. Thanks. Yeah, I think before, yeah, I was gonna say before we got some hands up, just wanna make sure that we have reached all the people in the audience as it were that might have their hands up. I see Bruce still does, but I wasn't sure if there were any other. Bruce has his hand up and Maria Pecchi just put her hand up. So I'm bringing her in. And I see that Sean's hand is up as well as mine, but yes, we can wait. Yep. Maria, can you hear us? Or I assume you can hear us when we hear you. I can hear you and Jonathan, if you wanna let your committee members go first, I'm fine with that. No, let's, we've all had a chance to talk. I'd like to hear from you all. Okay. And then we can talk some more. Okay, first I want to appreciate that this discussion is being had and is now public. That was important and it didn't happen. I also want to acknowledge that, I think that people in the room are interested in net zero and so on, but that is really no excuse for the really poor process that's gone on here. It's really clear to me that there have been a lot of balls dropped on many levels. Maria, good Lord. Bruce, I would appreciate that you could not comment in the middle of my comment. That's not okay and I'll accept your apology when you get the chance to speak. For me to sit here and listen to, oh well, there's just no time now is very frustrating. The net zero bylaw was passed many years ago. This school building project started several years ago and the need for the peer review, I don't think, nobody's doubting that a peer review is necessary, but how it's done is important. We've known this for a very long time and we've also known, I mean, Rudy and others have pleaded for an energy budget. I don't know how long it's been that he's been doing that. There is, it seems to me that there has been on a municipal project, a lack of proper and transparent contracting and competitive bidding and procurement, and that's not okay. As the first net zero building, it's important that we get this right. I don't think that that has happened. And when I see other things like talking about the need to get the red lining out to the public and I see Margaret, given the kind of, nope, we're not gonna do that. There are a lot of very smart, very interested, very engaged people in this community that went through the trouble of creating a net zero bylaw and have been following this along for the whole time. And this is our building. This belongs to us. This is a town. This is ours. And I think that there should be voices there directly engaged in this process. I'm also a little concerned when I heard things like, well, you have to decide whether you just increase the PV, the number of panels versus the energy efficiency. And I think that seems to me that that's exactly what Rudy was getting at and that, no, that's not necessarily what you do. That's not the right way to do it. So I think that this was problematic. I hope things change. I hope the sustainability subcommittee will engage and meet publicly with documents much more frequently as we go forward in this process. Thank you. Thank you, Maria. So I was gonna say Bruce still has his hand up. So Bruce, do you wanna come back in? You had asked, you can unmute. Yeah. Was that my comment that was broadcast earlier? It seemed to have been, I don't know. Because I thought I was automatically muted when I finished talking. I didn't think I kept going. You have a technically non-proficient hostess here, here. I didn't... Sorry, I disagree with what Maria said and I didn't know that it would be broadcast other than to my dog who's sitting next to me here. But no, I'm sorry, Maria. I didn't mean to put you off your stride there. That wasn't intended at all. But I do fundamentally disagree. I don't often disagree with Rudy, but I do in this matter. I think, but we've had this conversation a lot. We had an energy budget. It's just not accurate and proper to say that we didn't have an energy budget. We had, at the most basic level, we had an energy budget of 25 KBTU per square foot as the basis for design. That's an energy budget. We had that energy budget broken down as best it could be in the schematic design phase based on familiar and similar projects. And that was the energy budget. And I had some conversations about whether I thought that the fractions of that were appropriate. And I had some questions about what does certain titles of that? It was a bar chart or at least a columnar chart. So we've had an energy budget from the beginning and it hasn't been very detailed at the beginning because they don't. They get more detailed as you go along. And then when you start to build an energy model, which you don't want to start too early, then it gets more profound, more precise, more detailed, more thorough. But it's just not correct to say that we haven't had an energy budget. Rudy, you're wrong about that. We have had an energy budget. It may not have been as thorough because you are one of the most thorough fellows I've ever met. You just completely cover all the bases. So I think the disagreement here is whether it was thorough enough. And I think it was. And it could get more thorough and it has. A second disagreement is, I think it would be counterproductive and possibly extremely counterproductive to imagine that we would, as a preview, commission a second energy model. First of all, if that had have come up in town meeting and it had have been stated that we would have had a $20,000 or $30,000 premium attached to that, my guess is that we wouldn't have gotten as many votes and maybe not enough votes to get this through. So it's disingenuous, I guess, to imagine that we should have an energy, a second energy model now after the vote has been taken because it's probably a factor that would have killed the Bible. I don't know that, none of us knows that, but we certainly have to recognize the possibility. The second reason why having a second energy model is that then the reconciliation process has to happen and there's no, it's not nearly as easy to do that as it is to reconcile the cost estimate because the data and the inputs are buried. Whereas in the cost estimate, everything is out on the table and you can see one to the other quite quickly and we're used to reconciling cost estimates. No one's used to reconciling, competing or parallel energy models. So we've got the cost and we've got the time and I would say that that would be time spent that was not as productive as we, as the design team and could be spending. The hours that it would take to reconcile two energy models would be I'm essentially wasted because it could be better spent doing many, many other things, almost anything other than that, I think. I think it's quite appropriate and not only appropriate but proper that as you said, really, just checking over what the other consultant has done, you said, you implied that that wasn't a legitimate peer review. I would argue that that's exactly what a peer review is supposed to do. So I think we disagree on that level. So on all matters of this bit, I think the process that we've discussed and that's being promoted and here is appropriate and I'm not troubled at all because I think I've said that. And I think so far as the Maria's comment about buying more PVs instead of more insulation or extra pane of glass or going from argon up to Krypton in the gas or improving the low temperature steels around the windows, all of which are marginal costs that can improve the performance. There are places where you might want to do that, not just for energy reasons, but for health or durability or mitigation of mold or condensation or something like that. But at the end of the day, you get to where Shelley was, where there are purely cost comparisons. They're purely cost comparisons at the end of the line and that's exactly what you do. And that's what I've done for years in my practice. It's totally common by intelligent designers. And so it's not a lazy or whatever other characterization we might lay upon it. It's good design. I think that's enough for me for now. Thank you. Thank you, Bruce. Kathy, can you confirm if we have any more public comment? The only one we have is both Maria and Rudy re-raise their hands. So, Jonathan, it's up to you as chair how you want to handle this. Well, I don't want to cut off. I would like us to have a robust conversation. I would like to ask that people do their best to keep concise their comments. And also to say that I would like this to be the last round if we can, because we do have to, we also have some questions from the committee and such. So, Jonathan, what's going to be actually something that Rudy might want to respond to? I don't know if they want to respond to this. I'm not an expert in sustainability. So, you know, energy budget. I don't know if there's a standard for what an energy budget looks like. I was going to say essentially what Bruce said, which I know from the beginning of this project, we had set energy targets. Now, it sounds like an energy budget, maybe that target extrapolated out into, you know, wings of the building or classrooms, how much energy they use to produce that target or how much the mechanical systems can use to produce that target. But I don't know if this could be for Shelley as well. Is there a standard energy budget that goes beyond that that we should look to? Or is this another one of the pieces that we're sort of kind of crafting as we go? I would let Shelley answer that, you know, from my perspective as a design professional, there isn't a hard and fast standard. You know, it, when, you know, my perspective, not a lot of Shelley go, is that when Amherst crafted this bylaw, this was all kind of a new, a new thing. And there's, and it's still new, and it's still evolving as to what some of these terms mean, but I'll let Shelley speak. Yeah, I mean, I would say that the standard of practice right now is EUI, that's the correct term. That's, and that's what, that's what we started with. That's what we commonly do. It is the energy target. And it does, as was described, as Bruce described, it starts general and then you flush it out as you go through the process and you know more about things. But it is, it does give you what you're aiming for. And it, and EUI, I think, maybe is elusive to some, but it's just, it is your annual, annual energy use divided by the square footage of the building. The reason we express it on a square footage basis is so that we can compare building types. Like, so I can compare 100,000 square foot elementary school to 150,000 square foot elementary school in terms of what the energy you should be. So that's why we divide it by square footage to get the intensity and that we can then know, like a building of this type in this climate in an aggressive high performance way should be able to meet a certain target, right? And so that's why we start with EUI. And then, you know, the budget, if you want like the total numbers, usually, again, you just multiply it by the square footage. So that is the only way I've ever seen it started and stated and it's common, it's, it's best practice. And then, yes, you know, you don't know at the get go how that budget is going to, how that target and budget, if you will, is going to be divided amongst the various systems of the building. You have to figure that out. Like it is the maximum, like, okay, we can't go over this number. And so we've got all these different systems that are going to be using energy. How is that going to be distributed throughout the building? That's the problem that you're solving for, if you will. That's what the design process is doing. That's what it's about. That's what's being fleshed out. That's what's happening right now, right? That is the budget not to exceed EUI 25, right? If we can do better, we've had some discussions about that. If this project could do better than, you know, and if it makes sense to do better than that might also be an option. But I see it as Bruce does that this is, this has been done. It's been done. It's been done. It's been done. It's been done. Following the best practice that, that is common and standard. And I don't see any anomalies in the way that the design team has been proceeding on that front. Thank you. Who have their hand up first. I think they went up simultaneously. And I just want to make one comment on the checklist. That's what we're paying Shelly for. Otherwise we would have had it already. We would have had it already. We would have had it already. And that's something we were contracting for before. So my understanding it's in the proposal to do that. And hopefully we will have it sooner rather than later. If we move forward. So Maria and Rudy's hands are up. John. It looks like Rudy is already unmuted. So. By that. The. Level of. Bunch of go. Thanks. I would agree there was an energy target set. And some very broad categories of energy use. Model door. You know. Projected. But that to me doesn't seem like a real energy budget based on the end users and how they're going to use the building and what kind of printers and computers and. What our kitchen equipment is going to be. If I gave the town a proposal. With a doll, you know, I don't think anybody would think that was a serious budget. So. So I would like. I'm not going to argue that. Well, let's put it this way. I think the point of consensus might be that we need to as. I think Shelly. And Bruce were saying that that will get developed. As the design process goes on. So I would like to see. The energy budget get refined to show that all the different uses and the big missing one is plug loads. Are going to be likely used by the users. With, you know, quantities of things and hours used and all those kinds of things. In a refinement of the energy budget to make sure that that will get developed as the design process goes on. So I would like to see the energy budget get refined to show that the energy budget gets refined to show that the energy budget gets refined to show that the energy budget gets refined to make sure that 25 UI is realistic. And that our building doesn't need to make other compromise to make sure we're there. So I think we could all maybe agree on that. As a solution. I hear you all about cost and time on not modeling. And so I'm not going to press that point further. But I would. I'm not going to press that. I'm not going to press that. I'm not going to press that. And shelly hasn't done the completed checklist, Kathy. But I'd like to just see what. Is in their draft checklist. Because I've gotten the feeling that they've been working on this for a little bit, at least. Anticipating. Nothing. No. No draft checklist. No. Okay. We have made a proposal to provide one. That's finalized and filled out. And used for the review. The sustainability committee could take a look. That's all. I think it would clear it might have answered a lot of my confusion over what are we going to get at the end of this? And will it answer that important question in the bylaw. If it's built. Per the construction documents. Is it projected to be zero energy capable? I think the answer is probably yes. But we want, we need to see it. So. Anyway. And we, and we need to do it. And you need to do it. And I realize there's time and money constraints. So thanks. Thank you. Thanks, Jonathan. I want to remind everybody again. This is a municipal project. It means you need to maximize your transparency. That means you have to have. Equal access. Of voices into this. Everybody is entitled to their opinion on things. But that opinion needs to be able to be heard. And heard publicly and taken in. By. The people who are making decisions as our representatives. I think it's. Also very clear. That there have been significant process problems. Here. In terms of how this went down. The fact that this meeting had to be called. To talk about this in public. After the fact. And without. I don't, I really don't know if this, what the. School building committee members understood. They were voting on at the previous full meeting. We just, you just have to do better. On this. It's not a bad thing. To get different perspectives and opinions in the room. Fairly. And fairly heard. You'll get better decisions. You'll get better buy-in. We just have to do better. On that. Thank you. Thank you, Maria. And assuming that we are. All our public. Comments. Has been heard. I'll move back to. Comments, questions, concerns from. The subcommittee. Kathy. I'm ready to make a motion that we, as a subcommittee. Recommend. Proceeding with. The subcontract under answer to architrend. And just underscoring that. That's my motion. But my underscoring that is, I think. This is time dependent. It was always a reasonable proposal. It's actually pretty unusual. To be reviewing subcontracts. But in this case, one could understand why we're doing it. Because of the net zero precedent. I think we are fortunate. That we. Brought on. Shelly early on. And I just want to remind anyone in the audience that one of the reasons we chose answer was Shelly. Way back. When I, the answer team. Was the owner's project managed team that actually brought in someone who knew something. About net zero, which was a precondition for us. Choosing a team. And. What Bruce just said about Shelly carrying. What impressed us all was the intensity. That she's a believer and had expertise around this issue. And she's the one. When I was going out and knocking on doors for schools. When I talked to them about. The feedback loops where the kids get involved, the teachers get involved, the end users. And starting to put that in. You just said in their DNA. You're the one that brought that up. And everyone got really excited about that as being part of the education curriculum on. And having some kind of visible way that people would know. So, so I think. I think we. Are in an amazing. Place right now to have someone to continue to work with us. So that's why I am making this motion. And I think the sooner we do it, the better. Because I think when we do the next sustainability. Committee meeting, which has only been waiting for Teddy to get back to us. I think we've actually had the checklist to look at. So we could, we could be further along than we are while DD is racing along the path. So therefore I'm making a motion that we recommend. And I'm not sure whether the recommendation is to the town or the full committee. Because the town is the one that has to do the, the procurement, the agreement to make this part of Margaret's larger contract, which has already been approved with a spaceholder. So I'm not sure whether we could make this part of the motion, but that the town's determined that. So I'm making a recommendation that we proceed with the architect. Arquitain. Propose subcontract. Second. Yeah. If one of the other you could. More succinctly. Set the. What we would be voting on. So. No, go ahead. No, go ahead if you can restate. So I'm, I'm proposing that we were recommend we proceed with the architect subcontract to answer contract, and they were recommending this to and that's where I was hesitant. Are we recommending it to the town or to the full committee shown. So, so the full building committee already voted the contract to the opn, which included, which includes this. I think what's probably the right stuff is at the next building committee to share this recommendation without an ask if anybody wants to reconsider. You know, we can update them on this conversation and the recommendation from this committee and see if anybody wants to reconsider that bow. And if there's nobody that wants to reconsider, then we just look forward to the contract as that contract again already includes a place over for your viewer. And it was already approved by the full committee. And can you remind me more than is the next full committee meeting. I think it's the 17th. No, sorry, the 18 morning of the 18. So, so the contract could not be completed until August 18. Would that be correct. So, so I've talked to Margaret about a placeholder for a peer review can be in the contract, you know, that's something you need. Who that reviewer is, I think it's what this conversation is, but we know we need a placeholder for peer review. So I've talked to Margaret about making sure the contract is. That's all it is a placeholder for a peer review. The alternative could be possibly taking that piece out and do it in an amendment, but I think we've already voted the contract as it is. The dollar amount that it is. And so, just make sure that it's just a placeholder not estimated for anyone one firm until the full committee reconsider. Jonathan, did I make it simpler? It didn't make it simpler enough as a motion that we recommend proceeding with the architect contract to the town and the full committee. Yes. That's my, and I'll double check the zoo to to write that up. And then Sean seconded. Yep. And if last another time, whether, I think there's any more committee question and discussion on now the motion. Not seeing any. We can move to a vote. And I'll just walk around. Was there a second. Yes, that was on second. And so Kathy. Yes. Sean. Yes. Thank you. Rupert. I'm you. That was a yes for Rupert. And I am Jonathan's also a yes. The motion carries. Jonathan, we. Margaret can maybe just write this up really quickly in terms of a discussion and then you can submit it as a report to the, the full committee. So, you know, well, the zoom will be available right away. Angela sends it to us. You can, you know, so that would go in the packet for the 18th, along with the architect 10 countries of contract. Yeah, yeah, I've taken notes. So we're pretty much good to go. Well, I think since we were really. Meeting. This was our primary task for today. I think I could adjourn this at this point. Unless I am missing something. Are we good. I think we are. And I want to thank Shelly and all the public. I thought this was a really good, good discussion on. What's it in a place to move forward. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you all. Thank you. Appreciate you all.