 Good morning everyone this is the Friday the 13th as someone just pointed out meeting of the elementary school building committee and I think instead of it being bad luck it will be good luck. Hopefully today, and seeing that we have a quorum, I'm going to call the meeting to order but I first need to make sure that everyone can hear and be heard because we're conducting this meeting virtually by zoom and the recording will be posted. So I'm just going to call people's names out of the order I see them on the screen. Mike. Here. Jonathan. Here. Tammy. Here. Rupert. Here. Then. Here. All present. Phoebe. Good morning. Angelica. Here. Alicia. Here. Simone. Here. And Sean. Here and Kathy, like I said, I'm going to have to leave in about 15 or 20 minutes. I just want to join so you could get quorum but it seems like Paul's here so. Okay. Did I miss anyone Angelica did I call you. Yes. Okay. So if I miss anyone, please just raise your hand as I went around the screen because that the tiles. Reorganize themselves when people joined. So I'm going to turn the meeting over to Margaret. I think you all received two mailings directly from her. One was the. One was the design choices. And then yesterday there was another list. So Margaret, I'll let you explain it. And the one item I want to add to the very end of the meeting and anyone who's not here I will pull is both Paul and, and Mike have said they can't join us next Friday at 830 in the morning. So I'm going to see whether we can find another time. On Friday, or on Thursday, because I think we're going to need that meeting. So I'll do that after we see how far we get today. Margaret. Okay. So I'm going to pull up the agenda briefly. Oh, we have disabled. Oh, I'm sorry. How do I, I don't know why I don't remember to check this right when I sign up. I don't have to enable. Sean, do I enable the specific person? If you go down. Yeah, we're such a share screen. You could just, I think it says allow panelists to share or something like that. Just click that. Multiple participants can share. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So. Can everybody see that. I can. See if you can see it. Everybody else can see it. So this is the agenda. Happy new year, everybody. We're going to do a couple of things here this morning. So I'm going to give a, once we've looked at the agenda, I'm going to give a little bit of an introduction to where we are in the process. Then we're going to go through the revised value engineering list. And then we're going to look at that. Dinesco sent out while I sent out Dinesco created and I sent out last night and is now in the packet. So it's an updated list from Monday that includes some more thorough pricing. What we want to do in looking at that is determine if there's anything on that list that the committee does not want to do. And then we're going to have a brief discussion about what, if there are other items that we should be considered for cost savings, then I'm going to give an overview of the total project budget, which is the sort of larger budget that includes the soft costs and talk a little bit about the reimbursement when we're going to have a more detailed discussion about that at a later date. I'm going to give you a flavor for where it stands right now. And then we'll talk through next steps, which includes the meeting that's coming up with council as well as the community forums, and then we have three invoices at the end to review. So that I'm going to take this down. It sounds very strange to my screen. And just sort of recap that give my intro so, you know, as I described to you in the memorandum I sent out earlier this week, we, the first week of January we received both invoices we had a long actually turned out to be an eight hour reconciliation. Estimates were above where they had where we had been at the PSR, although as a reminder the PSR estimates are really to sort of get a basis of comparison of cost. But we recognize that, you know, that we really needed to get it down somewhat so there's been a very positive and engaged effort involving all of the consultants. I haven't contributed much I really want to give Dennis go and their team a lot of credit for this. And that resulted in the estimates I sent out with my memorandum. As I said in the memo there are really, in my opinion, three big things that are reflected in the cost increase so one is that there was a larger than anticipated escalation between over the past six months as we did the last estimate that has prompted us to be more conservative about including escalation going forward. And the reason for that is that the basis of this that what happens with this number when it's finalized as it becomes the basis for your funding agreement. And we want to use a conservative number in order to protect the community if the cost goes up later. The MSBA is they're not in they're not in the room sorting that out. And then I think the third reason was that as the team had an opportunity to really dig into the implications of the site and making this a really functional site. That process and the costs associated with it have turned out to be somewhat complex. And I say that because if you take the estimate, the estimates that we've given you, and you look back at the PSR estimates there's a there's a pretty substantial uptick in that number. So there's there's upticks in other unit costs throughout the estimate but that that's a big one. And we know that this week we know that the there is real value in developing the site so that I'm not making an argument against against that I'm just saying that I think now we really sort of sussed out what the cost of that is. So, the next step and this is a typical next step in every project is then to look at whether we can find cost reductions without changing as Donna has said several times, the function, the appearance, or the educational programming fit for the project. So the list that we're about to go over is that list it's a list that's been developed by the design team and their consultants, and I'm going to with that introduction, just I want to ask if there any other questions about this before I turn it over to Tim to go through the list. Sean, I see Sean. Margaret, I know the cost estimates kind of stole the show, but I don't know if we met since MSBA approved their changes and it may be worth at some point going over what MSBA did, you know, in large part from the advocacy from Amherst, which, you know, it's, it's, it's not going to absorb all the higher costs from the cost estimates but it's going to make it not as painful as it would otherwise be. No, thank you Sean so yes the MSBA met on the 21st and when we get, when we get to when the floor comes back to me and we look at the total project budget. I'm going to talk about it a little bit but I will say the MSBA did raise the cap on construction, a significant amount it's by no means. It's not the full amount of what this project is costing or any other projects are costing, but it has helped the bottom line in terms of the reimbursement so we'll come back to that and I'll sort of show you what that looks like at that stage. Any other hands. Kathy. Yeah, just a quick one, Margaret, when you said, as the, and Tim can be answering this too as you got in more toward the actual site the dirt, the mud, the water, whatever, you know, clay. You know, what I, what I saw, if I did a quick look going backwards, things like aggregate peer went up by a lot some of the, is that all because you had better improvement you had more and better information and how much of that was unit costs and I don't need an exact because it looked to me like unit costs of almost everything went up a lot, but then some of the things sort of jumped up. Tim, why don't you, can you, is there a brief answer to that question. Yeah, I just want, I just, you know, just the brief answer is it's mostly unit costs but there is a little of both there would there's much more detailed information that was provided to the cost estimator so there are some quantities that went up or were better understood, which developed the cost since the PSR, but, you know, a large bulk of this and it's across trades across all of the materials across all of the aspects of the project. There is just broad based escalation that has increased the price of just about everything involved. And then Kathy, I think you asked about the site in particular, and there was more testing and investigation done on the site and I think we had ram a aggregate peers in at PSR one of the items that was, I think he think of being added to the mix was also preloading the building footprint, which was a new number that was basically another tactic involved to basically pre settle the existing soil so that was a straight add. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, just to guy. I also. That's a really good example, Rick. You know, I think as they dug into it. The soils are so poor that in order to get a sort of sufficient kind of compressed base for the building. They're going to have to load the stick and I have to clear and load, like, put a big pile of dirt on the area where the new building will be built for several months in order to make sure that they have sufficient compaction. So, I agree at Rick, I think, and Tim, it's a great summary there. There was more information was definitely a piece of this, but there were also increasing costs. So, I don't see any more hands. And I want to get into what I think is really the meat of the conversation today. Tim, are you the are you the fearless leader here? I'm going to share the list. And we're going to go through it, because it's a lengthy list we're not going to go back and forth between the drawings and explain every item. But at the end, we're going to walk through the materials as you see them and there have been some small tweaks. But let's just start with the list and we can start going through item by item and give an explanation and answer any questions as we go through. Is this zoomed in appropriately? I know you all have this, but I just want to make sure that you can read the items as we're going down. Tim, the only other thing I'd like to point out is that as we spent hours looking at ways to reduce costs, we reached out to all of our consultants with their eyes on their trades, which was extremely helpful. We have identified in green where it says team recommended, where we're recommending a change in the drawings or in the project, and where we say no where we feel that it's a detriment to the project. So I just in the green column, and then what we've done is of course we tallied it over under accepted. There are some potentials that may impact operations may impact some some other areas that we felt it was an hour call to judgment call on on your part, whether to take those or not. So the ones that we're saying yes to, we feel have no compromises to the overall project, we'll walk through them, and then we can go forward. You could probably make it bigger. Yeah. There you go. So we categorize categorized by sites building exterior building interior and mechanical systems so we're going to start with the site. The first item on the list is replacing concrete sidewalks. Essentially the paved area around the building with betuminous black top. It's a nearly as durable, less expensive material. There are considerations in terms of maintenance or minor considerations, especially black top will have to be resealed and things like that, but it is a significant savings with minimal impact on the function of the building so we think this one should be accepted. Tim, Tim, could I just interrupt Kathy and Margaret you would you like us to pause after each item or go through the entire list and let let people ask questions. I'd like you to do a category at a time, and then ask questions, because I think several of them are knit together. So you're better off doing a category at a time. Okay, so, so we've organized this. And I, I don't want to say I apologize. We, you know, to the wire last night still scouring and didn't want to leave any stone unturned. So, we know you received this a little bit late last night for the updated one. We've organized it by site by architectural which really doesn't come into play, necessarily here. And then, and then mechanical electrical etc. So we'll go through the site first and then pause. The next item is eliminating the curb at the west side of the parking lot the parking lot slopes as a whole to drainage features on the east side. So the curbs on the west side are not doing anything in terms of directing water. They are the wheel stop for the car. They have some function that way they would, if without a curb on the west side it would be a little bit easier to push this snow off in the winter. So that there's some things to think about both ways. We've listed that as a potential because we'd like to hear Roberts and facilities. Thoughts on that before we put it into the accepted column. The next item are is bluestone in the rain garden so the rain gardens at the east of the building have bluestone pavers in them that would allow it a little easier for kids to walk and really get into them as they're doing their outdoor learning in those environments. What this does is replaces those larger bluestone pavers with gravel, which is still a walkable surface neither of those are technically accessible but there is a stone dust path and a wood platform at one of the rain gardens that would include this area and make it accessible so that everyone could be involved with learning at these features. The next item is delete unit pavers there were two areas one at the main entrance of the building and another at the outdoor learning and planter garden south of the building where we had unit pavers mixed in with the sidewalk. It's a nicer. It's a different paving material that allowed us to mark entry and a significant happening going on site but there are other ways that we can achieve that within design and it is an uptick in cost so we eliminated that and we'll use normal paving in those areas. The next one is with all of the earthwork that's happening on site the preloading the stripping off the existing top soil there's going to be an excess of fill that based on the testing that we have the top soil is not of a quality that we think it could be sold, which is usually worked into the general contractors bid. So therefore if they cannot sell it they would have to pay to dispose of it off site. If there is an opportunity for the town to accept this top soil possibly some clay like soil. And that would be a savings to the overall project if that opportunity exists within the town. The next item is to take the building itself and lower the first floor elevation one foot. If the building is one foot lower there's one foot less of earth that has to be brought in their site under the building itself and in the surrounding areas to make the grades work. The way to this location of the building on the site works, it slopes down to the east so at the west side of the building, you would still be about three feet above the groundwater table, which is obviously a concern and has been driving, keeping the building above the existing first floor elevation this whole time, but even with moving it down one foot from the 178 elevation where it is currently designed. We would still be above the groundwater and all of the drainage layers and permeable fill that we have under the building would remain that would break all of the capillary action so we feel that you would still be protected from groundwater. The next item is to delete one full size basketball court, this is a potential. And we it you know could have an impact on the use of the site and how heavily it's used during PE and recess. So we put this in the potential category and I realized that I haven't been reading the values associated with all of these some of them are quite large and some less and obviously that will play a large part in the decision whether or not to accept them, but removing the basketball court is about $50,000 55. The next one is to delete the play surface between the two structured play areas it is the soft surface that will be usable year round. That will allow a soft recess area, regardless of the weather. And we did not include this, because we know how important that is to have an outdoor recess where kids can play year round, regardless of the weather, but it is a lot big ticket items so we felt the need to put it on the list of $270,000 after markups. The next item is birdhouses that were included in the estimate. They're a part of outdoor learning and certainly can be interesting but there are other ways to achieve that so we included that and it's also a small $5,000. And the last item in sight is to sharpen the pencil on the number of parking spaces we have. I believe the count is right, but as we really get into it and see what the staffing and digital levels are. There is an opportunity to reduce paving said it's not a big ticket item but for every space that you eliminate, you would be saving $1,000. Maybe what we could do is bring up. Well, if anyone has any questions but we have the site plans we have images so that it might be helpful for people to see what we were talking about. If anyone has any questions related to any of those items I'm sure people do. We're hoping people do. Paul, Kathy and Rupert and I'm going to start with Rupert. I think I've unmuted. So the curb on the west side. Can you show where that is that's along that edge there. Yes, it would be from the north edge to the south end of the parking lot and that for the entire parking lot that is the uphill side so it sheets to rain from water management features on this side. Understood. One of my concerns will be cars. Trying to get up onto that grassy area. And I'm wondering if there's ways that you see that that might be discouraged, given your perspective. What we currently have priced is a vertical granite curb which is at the high end of curbs there are either slope granite or asphalt curbs that could be used, those are not as durable for plowing. We'll achieve a wheel stop so there is a middle ground between accepting its entire item at $35,000 and instead of taking the whole value, possibly half to do it. So you still have some of that wheel stop ability. I didn't mention wheel stops, which I'm sure most people that have to deal deal with them know our losers in the situation doesn't always standpoint Cape Cod burn might be a middle ground. I asked you to take down the chart did we recommend this or not. This was a potential correct. This was a potential. Yeah, I would my skill muted. So I mean I'd love to check in with our plum drivers and continue the conversation maybe we can, I can get back to you with the email or something. Yep. So, so the potentials or whatever so that's great thank you Rupert and a lot of some of the other items are, you know, we're not asking necessarily for the final decisions today I think what might be helpful is. If anyone says yep that's a no brainer that's great if if people want to think about things we understand that there are, I'll use the word impacts to some of the items and that's why we chose not to take them. That that's totally fine I don't, we're not asking people to make a decision today so thank you. Rupert is that it or and can for you or did you have anything else. In terms of the the rain garden, the blue stone. Is that an area that you're imagining we would be clearing in the winter time. And what's your take on snow blowers on the gravel surface. It is not an area that would be cleared anywhere that would be clear it is either. It would be concrete or baton miss paving, you would not be clearing anything that is gravel blue stone. So Tim, why don't you point out those areas, and these are kind of the depression areas that are also being utilized as our stormwater management. Yeah, they're sort of unnatural blue areas, and there would be no make their their sloped a little bit. There's no snow clearing that happens there. And then I guess, lowering the site sure sounds like an inch anxiety making thing for a 50 year plan on a wet site. I just want to express my hesitancy on that one. And then I know I think I'm done. So let's, I have a feeling. It's not the only person who has wants to talk about that so let's come back to talking about that I want to hear from Paul, Kathy and Jonathan. So Paul you're up. Yep, so I have three things one is, I just want better clarification Donna are you looking for us to say yes or no and a preliminary level today or you just informing us and getting sort of some feedback. Great. If, if we did have people in agreement with, with whatever items that we feel are appropriate. So to make this efficient if anybody disagrees with what you have. They should call it out and if they're if it says so we should try and come to a conclusion. Exactly helpful. Second on the removing the waste and putting it someplace on town land. That's a possibility. It's not a guarantee we could certainly explore that we would need to know the material that's coming out and the number of cubic yards that we're talking about. There is one or two possibilities of town owned sites that we might be able to utilize. So that's a definite possibility. The third is on the potential on the basketball court. I would argue, I would reiterate my previous point is basketball player usually like to see your basketball courts side by side because that's how people socialize and operate they don't walk across this distance and they should be, I would argue that we should have paired and they should be connected. So those are my three points. But you're, you're suggesting keeping it you're not. Yeah. And thank you we will make those modifications the other the other thing I guess maybe what I'd like to say is this is at the end of schematic design. And so the next phase is design development. And so I don't want anyone to think that we're done with design. Our cost estimators and and our graphics indicate that like we're going to go out to build tomorrow but but that's far from where we're at so we will continue all of those conversations but but Paul thank you will make that adjustment. So how much material we're talking about in terms of trucking. I think the estimator did have a number. We'd have to dig up. Okay. He I mean he talked about he was the one who raised this possibility because it's an interesting detail his this is now I'm talking here about Pete Timothy so what he said was that it was completely possible in the sort of bidding environment that a contractor would actually find someone to sell it to. We wouldn't see that. But if they didn't have some find someone to sell it to he felt we should be carrying a value for moving it. And he had done the calculation and he said it was a little bit belt and suspenders, but that's why the numbers in there so we that we can take that up Paul. Okay, Kathy. Take, why don't you take Jonathan and Mike first. Okay, Jonathan. I'm not muted. Okay, I was just going to say that on that last topic of the of the fill. There's at least one processor in town, who might be interested in, I cannot speak for them. So, I would be great if the town has a place to put it but I think we should also make sure that we can. Give it away. Who is the processor. I do know that Wagner would further up was at Northeast Street, produces things like you know compost and mulch and topsoil. They also process wood chips. I can't say that they would use it, but it wouldn't hurt to reach out there, you know, the mile up the road. That's a very short trucking distance. Okay, great. Thanks, Mike. Okay, so I just wanted to comment. Sonny yes no on the changes to the outdoor play spaces. I totally get it. I'm not going to say no year, because I get the larger piece. I just wonder if the player we're hoping to be all year is grass. Does that, and I'm not looking for an immediate answer but that does that change how we think about how we orient where the play spaces are. And sort of like grass, adjacent to grass. So I'd be interested in a future conversation about if that change occurs how we think a little differently about the upper spaces and where the playgrounds are and where, quote unquote playing fields are, because it would change my perspective on that aspect and I'm sad but we're all sad about lots of these things and, and I get it I'm also, you know, I get the larger picture here so you know, that's my concerns. Thank you. Yeah, so Mike we currently have that as a potential we're not at this point. Taking it where we arrived at the 5.1 million dollars but you know, we like to see more than 5 million sure right but, and so again. That is the committee's desire to put that in the yes column. Again as part of design development we would, we will continue to explore that. Okay, I see Phoebe's hand is up now as well Kathy do you want to go or you want to give it to Phoebe. Go to Phoebe first I'll go I'll go last. Okay. Phoebe. Okay, thanks so I'm, and I had to step away briefly so I'm hoping this is not, you know, doubling up on something somebody else said, I just had a question about the parking spaces thing. Are we talking about the amount of space for parking, decreasing that is that what that means or is that, you know, physical actual spaces. So that's my first question and then in terms of the play space I would agree that you know. So I agree that we probably have to look at that and I also sort of agree was thinking about Mike's concerns as well. And wonder in terms of I want to put that in a little bit of a different light as well in terms of accessibility. So if that is going to be grass and we're still hoping for year round use. I'm just wondering about location and having it accessible year round for for kids to use, but also just accessibility in general, upkeep all of those kinds of things so if we can figure that out and then can I ask sort of a more process because I want to go through these category by category but I'm trying to remember to go back to where we were to the timeline. Because I know that the site work had far less in terms of percentages of how sort of over what we were looking at in June site work is quite a bit less than than building so I'm just wondering. So we go through all of this and we talk about all of these things. How much do we talk about them and when do we actually start to make the decisions about it. Because I want to be weighing, you know, site work, building work, all of that kind of stuff, if that makes sense. Thanks. So, this is totally open dialogue right Kathy and Margaret we should. Yeah. Okay, so why don't we start in order I guess parking spaces, yet we. It's potential. It's just something we threw out that it would be a reduction number reduction of number not reduction. There's in there's 170 parking spaces and we're saying, typically that that's a lot for 575 students but we recognize that doesn't include all the special needs and the associated staff to support the program so we're just throwing out as as a potential, we have vetted this in the past so we, you know, think it's pretty spot on, but but we just thought we would throw it out there so that was the number of parking spaces. And this space as it relates to accessibility, it would be accessible. Right, it's going to be at the same grade, just like you'd be accessible to access the fields to the north of this. Does it get muddy. Yeah, it's grass. Right, so with with all of those. We're still carrying the sub drainage, if it's grass. But, you know, in the winter, you know, is there is there a concern you can't plow it in the winter, right. So, so those things. And then, as, oh, looking at each of the values. We, you'll see actually, Tim, I know I'm going to ask you to toggle back and forth can you bring up the cost, the V list. So if you go to the bottom, or maybe you can sum up the site, there is significant savings in the site and we tried to look at what the we didn't. Can you sum them up just by going to the accepted column. You'll see how much does you'll see that there really is significant amount of savings in site. We did not prioritize any one item, we looked at this holistically, and we said, Okay, we think that all of these items. It's right at the bottom that's $500,000. There's a sum down there at the bottom. So we looked at this holistically and said, Okay, what can we do that, again, would not alter the intent of the project, whether it's site, whether it's program whether it's ops that's why we had some as potentials because we didn't want to take some that potential impacts. So to say is site less important or more important than building etc. We didn't really look at it that way we looked at where some big cost items that would we could take a savings and not impact the overall intent of the project. So $500,000 and just what we're suggesting as yeses that's not including the basketball that's not including the play area that right those those are. That is also not including the reduction in floor elevation of one foot which I moved to the potential column when I heard misgivings. So that's $500,000 not including that. So that you know $500,000 is significant and and we don't feel that this is a reduction in the value of what you'll be receiving. Does that help Phoebe. I think so I was I think I was in terms of the process more talking about not saying that one thing was more important than another, but that it looks like when I was trying to look at numbers and I have not had a chance to go through all this it was a ton of frustration in a few days. But when I was looking at it look like the site, you know, the increase there sorry about the ding the increase there was about, you know, like 5% over what it was in June, the building was quite a bit more than that. So I was just trying to figure out, you know, I would like to go through all of it and see where the bulk of it is and then have the opportunity and make sure that we have the opportunity to come back and say, Okay, well yes, all of these things you know yes yes yes on all of these, and then that kind of thing so it was it was really more about process as opposed to more important because I think it's all important. We have to make, we have to make. I think you guys have recommended good things you know make those. So I think, yeah, and I think what we'll say is kind of what Margaret said at the beginning. We were able to do a deeper dive on the site. We understood, given the soil conditions that you know we were able to understand better what we needed to do to preload and do things like that so there were some costs based on the information, the added information we had, but what you'll see. And maybe Rick or Tim I tried to pull it up. There were some significant increases in unit costs that were unintended or unanticipated six months ago. And we can maybe highlight as we kind of go through this, the unit costs have increased significantly on some of these items that even I mean it's blowing minds of even these cost estimators they're doing this day in and day out so so it's. I know you said it's only 5% on the site. More in the building the building obviously is just a greater portion of the cost of the project but there is some significant material costs and that. Maybe if I could add you have the site didn't jump up. And when you get into the buildings or individual line items that might not have jumped up, but given where the bottom number came. We looked at the entire project is an opportunity of saving money, even if something was right where it was earlier. It's an opportunity to save because there may be areas where we can't. And we're stuck with whatever that price increase was. Yeah, thank you. Margaret, I, Jonathan, do you have more to add or did your hand just not go up. No, no, I do actually meant to add one other item when I spoke earlier. I would like to encourage the design team to to sit down with with Rupert and his team a little bit more on those curbs as well. If I don't know the extent of vertical curve we have, but you really can use Cape Cod curbs. Fairly extensively I know we may not want to do that where you might have a bus running into it, or other things like that but you know that's to me a place granted curbing is very expensive and, and it's possible that there might be more savings than that. And so I just like to encourage that to be looked at a little, little bit more deeply. Okay, it's, I have a year. Okay, so I'm not sure when we want to do this Margaret but on the site, I had a few other items that I just wanted to raise as a potential area to think differently about them, and given what Phoebe is also observed on where are we trying to cut. So we've got today we've got next Friday and we've got another Friday so this is not a we can have potential carry potentials for a while in my mind as long as but we should eliminate. So I looked at planters planters, we have 18 of them, and I was thinking of things that the kids might be able to do as projects with the teachers that we could come back to later, and that was a $90,000 number. 50 log seats and 27 will logs to sit on. So I know that's part of the landscaping so I'm just wondering whether there's a potential to for some savings there because when I add that up. So I do Tim's roll up of 29%. It's 155,000 with with law with logs planters and then on the playgrounds. This maybe we have to have them but we have chain link French's around one is what the way I read it is a 12 foot one and a four foot one. It's on the $100,000 range. So I didn't know whether those are required and essential, and whether we need both the 12 foot and the four foot so one was just a question. That's it on. So I'm not. I don't have any, everyone else has already asked my questions about what you have on the list. These are things that you don't have on the list. So, related to the planters maybe you could bring up the. Actually, we have the movie that might show the planters a little bit. Right Tim, I don't know you're up. Okay. We do but the planters are. These are quite large planters Kathy. There were carrying enough. I think for two classes to be out there simultaneously. So this is the outdoor learning area that certainly is a conversation with staff to see if all 40. You know, is that a nice to have do you really anticipate using all 40 simultaneously or what the intent there is but because that really was directed to outdoor learning we felt it was important. These planters are large there. I don't, I don't think that students could go out and build them. We did say, you know, the birdhouses could totally be a student thing but these are quite large. Do you remember the raised planning beds at Senita Williams Kathy. Yeah, that's what these are. Okay, so that was a question. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and log seats that's another question to kind of circle back with Mike and those guys to see those are great for sitting. I think we were trying to reuse the trees that are being cut down right to reuse the logs. So could it be a Boy Scout or Girl Scout activity or something that they could provide but I get we can revisit those as well. So you've highlighted those, you know, and it's just I, I wasn't even thinking of eliminating them as much as could we get them less expensively, you know, do what people can we use reuse our trees was some of the people so, and then the chain link fences. I didn't know whether those are required or not. Yeah, the chain link fences to might you show where those are areas right. Yes, so for the play areas. There's a four foot fence that surrounds them which are good for essentially keeping kids in the area and then the 12 foot fences that you mentioned are typically behind back stops, essentially keeping the ball from going into down the slope into the rain gardens or stuff like that. And then my my other question with all suggesting if you put the two basketball ports together rather than a part that gives you an all weather surface that you could play on it's not soft the way grasses, but it is it's potentially a play area so I think redrawing that if we had to give up with the the green space. It's just as a way I think about I see kids doing all sorts of thing on basketball courts that's not always basketball. It's not as nice as it's off surface so it's just a, when we come back to your list was one of my thoughts of keeping the two basketball courts but put the putting them side by side. It's the way up in Mill River in our recreation area they're side by, they've been side by side. So, that's, that's the end of my comments, and I see Alicia's hand. Alicia, Alicia. We're not hearing you. Let me just see whether she just disappeared. She disappeared. So, so I'll keep an eye out for her when she to when she reappears, we can grab her. Why don't we go on to the next bucket. Oh, actually, I'm sorry. So, Rupert, I put you off about the issue of the relative height of the site. And I think you were looking from the design team for some confidence that that was not going to be a detriment to the project. A Dennis go team. Do you. Do you want to speak to that elite. I want to see whether Alicia can unmute and Alicia are you back and she does have her hand up. Can you hear me. Now we can hear you. Yes. Okay, sorry, I had this issue in finance committee the other day so I just logged off and log back on. But I just wanted to state that I don't have any opposition to any of the suggestions that the Dennis go has made today. I do however feel like I need a little bit more time to grapple with this so I'm glad that Kathy said we'll have a couple of more meetings. So I guess my question is just more about process in terms of when we have to make the final decision on this document and what then happens. When we're looking at the fact that we have two different cost estimates are we are we like basically what happens after this step we say okay we're going to eliminate, you know the basketball court and we're going to eliminate this playground and then do we send it back to somebody else it just goes straight to the MSPC of what happens. So, Alicia, let me speak to that a little bit so you know the purpose of the second estimate is to really kind of challenge the designers estimate. Typically, so the all these cost savings have come from the design team working with their estimator which is a infogarty. And we have not gone back to our estimator to align them but we would do that once this all kind of settled down to make that cost effective. So, I would say what we're looking for today as Donna responded earlier to Paul is that we're trying to get a sense of whether there are any of these things that are nose. And whether there are other things we should be looking for and what I expect will happen is that next week. We will be, we will give you an update on what we take away from this meeting. And I also think it's possible. Based on, you know, other comments from the community or from council that there may be further tinkering with this. Right now we have the setup for a February 17 vote for the whole thing to go to the MSPA and it submitted to the MSPA on March 2. So if you go back and look at the agenda you can sort of see the overview of those dates. From council's perspective, it would probably be ideal if the committee could pretty much agree on what's in and what's out by the time we're making a presentation Kathy I think that's on the 23rd. Right. You know, so that's next Friday, as I said we're going to try may have to find another meeting time next Friday but next week we have a week. We have scheduled another whole meeting. To go over anything we listed as potential, or as opposed to yeses, and, and then say that that's the list for now. So that that at least in theory we still have would have the 27th also do it Margaret but it would be an initial cut would be done by next Friday, decided it next Friday. So does that give you enough information to kind of frame what you want to do. Yeah, I mean I think that's more helpful but I still am wondering so will next Friday be the last time we have to discuss this before the council meeting correct. It would be the last time before the council meeting yes but it won't be the last time. If the committee wants to take it up again. And so we don't have to make the decisions by then but it would be nice so that we can pass those things to the council. I think it would be make the process clearer for them. Okay, that is helpful thank you. All right. So back to do this go team do you want to respond to the issue about lowering the overall Rupert's question about lowering the overall elevation of the site. We can offer that. There is no change the experience of the site which I don't think is the concern but the systems that we have designed and put in place the under slab drainage, the drainage layer will all still be in place. So the way this was designed we took the existing building elevation and raised the new building two feet. And the new building is south of the existing building where it's a little bit lower than the existing building at the west side and it's considerably lower at the east side. The drainage layer that is under the building is directly below the building and then that is three feet above what was observed to be the high groundwater level through test pits, and then at the east side of the building you would be six feet above. So, you know we have as much confidence in the system that we've designed given that it's still the same system it's still above groundwater, but obviously, given the history and the concerns on the site. It's a decision that has to be made and thought of and you have all of the appropriate time to make that decision. I guess another way to look at it, and then we put the range on there because at PSR and talking about the issue of the site, we made a conceptual decision at a new finish floor elevation wherever the building went. And that was to get more daylight between the high water table and the new finish floor. So, lowering it a foot would bring you from three feet to seven feet above the high water table. Now, lowering it is four feet to eight feet. I wouldn't have ever been talking about seven or eight feet of depth as being a concern under design consideration so it's really a value judgment of that, the value of that one foot of additional elevation where the water tables the closest and that's as Tim says the systems are in place to provide that break and it and it is a it is a comfort level but So, Rick, I just to summarize so at PSR you were you had an eight feet, you said it eight feet above the high water. The range here, this building here, if, if, if we maintain the PSR finish floor elevation, the finish floor above groundwater would be from four to eight feet by dropping because the site slopes in the water table by dropping finish floor afford to reduce the amount of fill here that distance goes from three feet to seven feet seven or eight feet had never been a real concern. It's that three or four feet so it's just trying to The minimum difference with high water table is three feet in the design you are proposing right and it was four feet and it was four feet. Okay, yeah I was just trying to focus in on the minimum right because after that it only gets better. Right. Alicia's hands back up. You know, I think leaving it as potential makes sense, which is what Tim just did. Yeah. Alicia. Yes, thank you Kathy. I'm wondering if you all can show the proposed fencing and if you have a diagram of that. I think it'll be helpful to really envision what that is supposed to look like. We do not have a very close diagram it's shown on the plan but granted it's it's somewhat blurry but it surrounds the structure play areas, the outdoors, alpha play, and then around the basketball courts as back stops there is fencing. A four foot fencing. Correct. Four foot around the play 12 foot around the play 12 feet behind the baskets. To prevent you know they're shooting hoops that needs to go high chain link is is what we're so Alicia I guess if you're trying to visualize what it looks like right. It's coded though it's a coded chain link fence. And you can pick certain colors so it actually blends into the site and the environment and you know, over time we've gravitated toward Brown is being the less obvious. Right, but but to so from a functionality perspective, this is probably we don't have this on the list right Tim, we don't. We have children that may try to run. So the playground areas we feel is important. I hate to contain them but but so that they don't go beyond you know the kids are running running running and having fun or deciding to explore so we feel those from a safety perspective are very important. So from the basketball court perspective, you know, I don't think everyone's as good as Rupert or Ben so they may miss the basket once or twice, and then go go and, you know, go have to go retrieve it which is in the rain gardens so we feel that those are probably an important feature to keep as well. Are the play areas closer to like the parking lot or the street because for me this is something that seems a little bit strange just because none of our play areas currently have any type of fencing. And so if it's fencing just around the play areas rather than the school that seems slightly strange to me. You know we could show you in it not today but we can maybe get some images but of what that might look like but I think we would defer to Mike and Tammy and team. I feel fencing around. It's the play structures right the playground if they feel that they don't need them, and, and that would be fine if they feel that they don't need them it really is to protect the students from from. It's been often, it's often been a request to have the playground that's for the younger kids to have a fence all the way around it. We've often done that. And so I think that's a good point to end up to. So, having gone to visit one of the sites that had more definition around the playground it actually was really nice to see that. And sort of, at least to the eye and then to add structure particular people that are outside during the week that's going to be with the teachers, their educators and former out there. And so you know, a full lens of safety. And having to have, you know, students that try to allow from school grounds to know that that measure is there would really help to alleviate a lot of stress that I know I felt and staff have felt by not having some type of barrier like effects. I think Margaret we could go to the next category for what I'm seeing. Yep. is the building envelope exterior of the building. So we'll go through the list and then we have a video of the exterior of the building that will show you the impact. First item on the list is delete rain screen phenolic resin panels. This is an exterior cladding system that we had at the stair at the south where the bus drop off is and it's mirrored on the north side. The material just allows you to give a different texture which we were using to mark entry. But it is one of the items where we saw a very pronounced increase in cost and we feel that we can achieve the same thing, contrast and color with a masonry material. So we've eliminated that. And so that was a $200,000 item. The next item on the list. We should be consistent. Maybe we just say a word about direct cost and total deduct and always talk, decide Tim that we're going to talk about the total deduct because it counts that. No, it's a substantial difference and a good point. Yeah, you're talking about almost 30%. So with the markups, the total construction costs, it's $273,000. So it is a significant improvement to the bottom line and we feel we can design the building and adjust as well without it. Tim, before you go on, I guess, just to reiterate what Rick was saying, I'm not sure we said at the beginning the difference between direct cost and total deduct. If you look at the cost estimates, there's the actual cost of the work. So this would be the material, the laborers, the subcontractors that would come in to do the work and then the general contractor and other necessary general requirements, conditions, escalation. We have some contingencies built in there. So you take the direct costs and then you take all of the line item costs, percentages, et cetera, and add it to it. And those represent approximately 29% of the direct cost. So the direct cost, if there are people out there looking at the cost estimates, that will help you take the unit costs that are associated with each of the items, but then you can't stop there. You then have to add the 29% of what we're calling markups, but they're also equally important in the, that's how the pricing occurs with the contractor. Moving to the next item, reduce overhang at the roof line at the media center and administration, if you recall, there was an overhang at the clear story windows. You've just simply cut the depth of that in half and once you add up the material to frame it and the cladding that when you reduce the depth of that it's $195,000. And we feel that there's only a minor change of the design, so we accepted that. The next item is reduce the mechanical screen wall that hides the equipment that's over the part of the gym and at the end of the library. With reducing the 50%, we could still block the view and have the same visual appearance from the main entrance. And then the equipment may be visible from the bus loop in some areas, but it's pretty far set back in the gym so we don't feel that this is anything that should be objected to. Delete horizontal accent mullions is the next item. It's simply changing the depth of the vertical and horizontal aluminum elements in the curtain wall as a design feature, but that's another one of the items where the markup was considerable since the last. So we've eliminated that and that's what markup saves $73,000. Yeah, if I could just add a little bit when we talked about unit costs going up. Again, that's so just plain windows was one of those items where we saw the estimators go from $100 a square foot for a window opening to 140 for actually a kind of a plain vanilla window. And that's based on their experience. So that's when we say there's inflation and unit prices and then based on that there's inflation multiplier that's down in those markups. That's how market conditions are affecting the cost of this estimate if that's helpful. Now, the next item on the list is to replace a spandrel glass. Which is essentially the glass that was part of the curtain wall at the cafeteria at the media center and we had a little at the music room. I believe where the curtain wall system goes essentially to the roof line, but the top panel was opaque just to complete the look, but that curtain wall, as Rick was saying is offensive, curtain wall is now $180 a square foot in the estimate. So that was changed to a metal panel system and that saved $60,000. The next two items are both changing one type of metal panel for another. Essentially a composite metal panel has two layers of metal with a layer of all your thing between them. It gives you a very flat look and sleek look, but they're both replaced here with a single layer of metal that is very similar and these are both materials that we have used before, but the cost systems have shown a dramatic increase between the two. So we switched to the break metal and between the two items is there's a $60,000 item at $160,000 to replace it at the walls and at the fascia of the canopies. The next item is similar in flavor, but it's zeroed out because it's included in the above. We did have this metal panel in various places, canopies, roof edges, accent panels throughout the building. So there's yet one other line item where that switch is made. So there's another one here for $90,000. The next two items are items that we do not recommend and therefore do not, but it's something that we typically think about. This one, one was replacing windows and clear story at the gym with Calwall. It lets diffuse light in, but it is a polycarbonate or plastic material and there have been issues with it deteriorating over time. So... And over time can mean less than 20 years. And then the next item is to replace Calwall at the cafeteria essentially and the gym with a punch openings that we at this point think that's too much of a design change. So we have not recommended that. The next item is to take the elevation of the second floor or the floor to floor height on the first floor and to reduce it by one foot. So that saves you the height of every wall in the building, one foot of exterior skin all the way around the building, which is a significant savings. The only impacts are that there might be some localized reduction in ceiling height. It would most likely be in the cafeteria, but this is... We feel that we can still get the ceiling height necessary to make it a usable public performance space appropriate for the use of an elementary school, but there is undeniable savings here. So we have it on the list. And there's also less exterior wall where heat is lost and Lex windows. So there will be a slight performance gain in terms of energy, but it is a $350,000 item. So we have it recommended. Jonathan, I saw your hand go up. I don't know if you want to comment on this one. You said one foot, but you're really doing two block courses or 16 inches. You are correct. Thank you. And I'll just put this in now. It's worth the question of whether there are some other small reductions that could occur on the other floor that would be an improvement, or it would just be too incremental to make a difference. The other floor is at 14 feet, floor to floor from second to third, and then 14 feet from floor to roof would be very, very tough to reduce without absolutely having to cut ceiling heights and lowering ceiling heights impacts the depth of daylighting into the deeper end of the space. Jonathan, just kind of to go back, the intent of the first floor, the reason why the first floor was higher than the other floors was solely, not solely, but to gain height in the cafeteria. So that's why we were originally doing that, but the other two floors are kind of typical heights for classrooms. And we have maintained the offset at the media center on the second floor, which will allow the floor to fly height over the cafeteria to be one foot four higher than the rest of the difference in the building. So we still have that in there. The next item, reduce the amount of curtain wall at the gymnasium as shown. There is honestly ample glass and a 30% reduction would still be ample. So we do recommend taking that. In our view, not really be noticeable from the inside of the gym in terms of the amount of daylight led in. So that's a $18,000 reduction. The next item is we replaced the material at the base of the wall where the curtain wall meets the ground in certain areas. And where one of our materials was meeting the ground, we had a precast concrete. We've replaced that with ground face CMU, which is concrete block, which is similar in durability, but more cost effective. There's another savings of $18,000 there. Yeah, that's the end of that. That is the end of the exterior. The next items are interior, but I was going to shift to a view of the exterior. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Yeah. So just to give people, again, a visual of what we're referring to. Starting from the entrance and moving around the building as we usually do. Some of the metal panel decisions that we talked about would be the edge of the canopy here, shown in orange, the music room above the windows, the roof edge setback that we talked about would be here at the edge of the library and the clear story at the lobby. And again, this model already reflects those changes. The phenolic resin panel that we eliminated was in this area, but we can have a similar contrast in terms of color as we develop with the masonry material. The color palette that we've been showing all along or in the direction that we've been moving in is still achievable with all of the changes that we have made. The window area in the classrooms has not been reduced at all. In general, no area has the window area been reduced other than the gym, which is shown here when we get around to that. Here are the planter gardens that we were talking about earlier, how they are constructed and the quantity is something that we can discuss further. And then as we come around to the south of the building, there's another area where the phenolic resin panel was shown and we can use a masonry material that was at the stair here and then the screen roll reduction that we've mentioned is on top of the gym. So that's the very end of the equipment. Honestly, a lot of the bus loop, the equipment is so far back on the gym that you may not be able to see it depending on final sizing. And this is the screen wall that would continue to be on the west side that would give you the same look from the front of the building that you have seen to date. We feel that the changes yield significant savings, but in terms of durability, design, intense experience of the building, everything has largely been maintained. These are all the materials that we have specified we have used in these projects before, but the unit costs have jumped significantly that we're looking for ways to make replacements with similarly durable, similarly useful materials. Any questions on that? That was super helpful, Tim, to have those pointed out in the video. Thank you. I also think, I think what you just said is we're looking at the building with the changes for the most part and my eye can not see them, which is great because I've been showing this picture. I've been to several things. So I'll just make that statement. I think the amount of money saved by switching materials makes a lot of sense to me. So I guess what Margaret was originally asking is anything we want to take off the list. Right now do we want to keep everything that's on the list, on the list? Tim, if you want to bring up the list, are there any items that were potential? I don't think so. I think we, I think we were suggesting that we take everything, right? We suggested that we take all of them on the exterior. On the interior, there are a few potentials, but the exterior, everything that I mentioned, we are recommending. Except for the replaced curtain wall, it's single story exterior walls, right? Which was zeroed out. Yeah. So anything with a value associated. Yeah. So there are some other items on the list that we do not recommend taking, but I don't know if anyone feels that we could continue to look at them, but we've, we, we think that to Kathy's point, we've really been able to focus on areas that we could reduce the, it's really the unit costs and the cost of the material have gone through the roof in the last six months. And that's why we're, where we're at, but it does not in the least reduce the overall look and feel of the building. So I think we should go to the next one. Donna, just because I'm worried about. As long as everyone, I just, there were a couple of no's and we just wanted to make sure everyone was good with that. We can move to the items on the interior of the building then. Again, there are mostly things we recommend, but there are a few that we have in the potential category. First is there was some paneling as you make the turn from the corridors into the project areas. We've looked at both. Reducing it and eliminating it. So. We have no as. Limiting entirely and a yes for reducing it by 50%. And the images that will show reduce it by 50%. But there's essentially a durable panel. At the. Interest of the project areas that. We want to reduce that would save us. $30,000. We have a video for this, right? We do. Yep. Some of these would be more evident. It may take less words to describe once we get to the video. The next item is. There are cabinets over the lockers in the project areas. We are. Suggesting replacing a natural wood veneer finish with a plastic laminate finish, which either can look convincingly like wood or another color. That would assist with wayfinding. But that would save. Forty cents. The next is reduced storefront. At the library interior. There's a basically a glass wall to the corridor. We are suggesting reducing that glass by 50%. There is enough daylight getting into the library. And from the stair across the hall that we feel that this. It would be appropriate. And then, you know, the glass and the frame for those glazing systems is, as we keep saying, one of the items where the increases were really felt. So any place we can make a reduction there is going to help the bottom line. That has a $20,000. Line item associated with it. The next one is replacing the system, not reducing the number, but changing the system in the library from an aluminum frame to a painted hollow metal frame. But given the low value for this particular, because there's not much in that particular area, we said no, but we could always read this at that. The next item is to eliminate the tile, Wayne Scott and all of the corridors. We are in the PSR and the basis of design. We had tile to five feet in the corridors. We would be replacing it in this item with a, a metal frame. The next item is to eliminate the tile, Wayne Scott and all of the corridors. We would be replacing it in this item with a abuse resistant. Gypsum, but that is still can be damaged. And you also introduce the cycle of painting into the maintenance of the building. If you do not have a tile surface. The item below that is. Instead of eliminating the tile completely, it's reducing the height from five foot to three foot six. So we do recommend taking that change for savings of $55,000. The next two items are a replacement of the paneling system that we had specified in the lobby and the cafeteria around the platform opening. We had a phenolic risen. Panel system, which is very durable and basically unlimited flexibility in terms of visual expression, color, wood panel look, but we've replaced that with a, a veneer wood paneling, which is also very durable and quite lovely, but it saves us a good amount of money. So $30,000 in the lobby and $17,000 in the cafeteria. And we do recommend accepting that change. The next item replaces the glazing around. The main stair that goes from the lobby up to the media center and then to the third floor that will allow a lot of daylight into the corridor and down to the lobby. It's currently, or a PSR was specified as a fire, rated glazing system. That's essentially laminated glass that is required around a stair enclosure to get the rating, but it is an expensive system. This item suggests replacing it with a hollow metal and adding day loose sprinklers that would allow you to achieve the rating. The thing is that this is not technically allowed under current code, although it was under previous codes, but you can do this if you have approval of the local building commissioner. So there honestly should be a small asterisk in this one, but visually and maintenance wise, it's the same, but it does require a conversation with the building commissioner, but it is a big ticket item. It's $338,000 after a markup. So we feel it's worth having that discussion. The Massachusetts building code allowed this. We did it up to 10, 15 years ago under the old Massachusetts code. The IBC required the actual UL labeled glass. And then as an alternative to that $338,000 savings, we could use the more expensive system and reduce it by 50%, which would still bring a generous amount of light into this space and still be a significant savings, but we would like to pursue the first option of the day loose and hollow metal system first for greater savings and more light. But if not the fallback would be $185,000 savings. The next item is to reduce the height of the tile in the multi fixture bathrooms from floor to ceiling tile to stopping it at five foot two of the floor. So similar to the corridors, you know you are introducing a cycle of painting and cleaning above the tile height, but anywhere, you know, from five foot two low or in the bathrooms, it would still be as scrubable, durable, and long lasting as the tile was before. The next item is delete the, we had a recessed picture hanging system in the corridors, which we, and many of our projects is used to display student art, but it is in this estimate a fairly expensive item. So there might be some addition of a tax trip or something like that, but we also still have in tackable surfaces at the lobby at display cases in the project areas. So we feel removing this is acceptable. And that's a savings of $37,000. The next item is a change of the ceiling system that we had specified in the cafeteria. We had a perforated metal panel with a sort of oscillating wave in it specified that could give some texture. But the price that was quoted in the estimates was, it was too high. So we're going to replace that with an acoustic panel architectural system that still gives visual interest, still will create a great ceiling, but it also saves $164,000. Similar to the ceiling in the cafeteria, we have, we have, we have clouds in the project areas outside of the classrooms that were originally specified to be a combination of a metal grid system, a ceiling system, and a combination of that and light fixtures. And we feel that we can accomplish very close to the same level of work and feel that will mark the spaces and give an opportunity to inform wayfinding with light fixtures alone. And to do it that way, yields the savings of $123,000. The next item is one that we do not recommend. It's a replacement of the wood. Essentially athletic floor or gymnasium floor on the platform. With a straight linoleum floor. So if you were to do this, you would save $20,000, but the, the bounce, the softness, the dance floor element on the platform would be lost. It would, it would just be a linoleum floor on concrete. This is one of the few that we don't recommend. The next one is reducing the transoms between the classrooms and the project areas. This is listed as a no, but we actually have it modeled as a yes. Just because we know how important daylighting is, we wanted to get your sense before we added this, but it is worth $107,000. So it might be worth it. The next item is to delete the hardwood trim that we had detailed around all of these transoms. But we feel that a similar detail in gypsum and paint would be acceptable. And it would save $105,000. So we are recommending that. And then the next. And last item on the interior of the building is to eliminate the kindergarten doors. There are a lot of aspects involved in this. To the outside. Exterior, sorry. Exterior doors. You can check in, but you can never leave. So all, all access would be from the corridor through the remaining door. But, you know, as we had it specified, it was egress only hardware and the door was there for the building. And that would cost the building because the room, the net area is over a thousand square foot. You need a second exit by code. But that can. Through various means, probably through a sign that post occupancies that is agreed upon by the building commissioner. And given that the intended use is never to have 50 people in the classroom anyway, we could eliminate that door. And that would be a savings of. A lot of things that we would have to discuss. The safety aspects. And all of the other things that go along with it. Tim, just to add to that. We don't, it is our understanding. I should say that you're not using the kindergarten teachers would not be using that door for exit and entry. Right. So it really is just from. An emergency egress purpose. And the other thing that we noted is that it actually improves the sustainability aspect of the building because we don't have another door for air infiltration. So there are. As long as that there is no intent to use it for. We don't have to add an energy vest to build to that. Yeah. So, so, you know, there's actually a benefit. From a sustainability perspective to eliminate the doors. And there, and there may be a benefit from a sustainability perspective. And there may be a benefit from a sustainability perspective. And there may be a benefit from a sustainability perspective. To eliminate the doors. And there, and there may be a benefit from a security perspective. Because the doors become potentially a target because they're. Sort of not on the most visible side of the building. Okay. So do you want to take us through the video, Tim? Yes. We're going to look at the lobby, the project areas and the media center again. So much of the lobby has not changed some of the materials. Nothing that you've seen here in terms of the paneling and the glass at the administration suite. Or the glass at the. Cafeteria. Has been affected the paneling that you see on the left here will has gone from a phenolic resin to an actual wood paneling. So that's one of the larger items that we're talking about is the glass around the stair. So this is what we're talking about. The two options were one to replace it with a different system that we would have to talk to the building commissioner about the other would be to reduce this by 50%. But the materials in the gym, the amount of glass going into the gym, the other ceiling conditions, the floor. So we have been no changes to the basis of design. As we circle around the. Cafeteria, the amount of glass to the cafeteria. Remains constant. Sorry about that. Tim, when you get to the. Portals of the project areas, maybe you can. Yeah. I wanted to mention so that the other area where you see paddling, it would change would be around the stage. And then. Here as you're. On your right as you're walking out of the building in this direction, we've changed that material. And the way it's rendered it already looked like wood. So we don't feel that it's. Too much of a distinction. So here is one of the changes. So in previous iterations, we've changed that material. And then we've changed that material. So this, this word, paneling at the entrance to the project area was rendered. Essentially to the. Door height of the toilets. And the tile that you see on the left here went to five foot two. So we've reduced that 18 inches. And we've reduced the paneling at the entrance to the project areas to the same height. So we've reduced the paneling at the entrance to the project area. As you can see, there's a lot of glass and shoes. But there was some savings there. And we felt that we can still do what we have to do to keep the walls durable with people going through it. So as you go into the project area here, you can see that the clouds are a little bit simpler. And this is just an estimation of the size. There are lots of things that we can do with. right look this amount of glass over the classrooms is reduced it shows the 40% reduction so the hundred and seven thousand dollars associated with that change that has not been taken in the current total would be added if we did not put back the glass that is shown and then other change in the project areas is these cabinets above the lockers have gone from a natural wood finish to a plastic laminate finish and as we develop design we can figure out what's most appropriate whether it is a wood look or some other look with plastic laminate you have a range of expressions that are available but just as a point of reference the glass over the central classroom in the cluster of three essentially went all the way so with a few breaks of this width the glass went wall to wall in the project area and this reduction is what you would be looking at if we were to accept that line item now moving into the cafe to excuse me the media center there is a 50% reduction in the glass into the work room included in that storefront reduction none of the exterior glazing has changed or the other materials in the library and then as we circle around to look at the entrance wall to the library and did we change the ceiling materials we did not change the ceiling in the library we changed the ceiling in the project areas and the media center but in the cafeteria I'm sorry but we did not change yet not in the media center we changed in the cafeteria and then the solid wall around the door looking to the corridor is a decrease in the amount of glass from the last iteration but there is still a considerable amount of glass that will allow natural light coming from the stair across the corridor or from the library itself to get into the corridor and from a program perspective at that end of the building or the front of the building there's the media center the art and stem classroom and and a couple of there's a lit specialist room so it's still equally important but there's not project areas students won't be gathering they we could use the corridor for project based learning so that's why we felt it was important to bring light in but there's ample light still resonating into the corridors which really are not used like the project areas I think that that's that one wants to open. Any questions? I am not seeing any hand. Can you go back to the list? The picture is prettier but I'm going back to the list briefly. So again Kathy the if you've been sharing these views right there's the views look the same right yeah so besides it's can you find 10 things different? Yeah yeah so if you could spoil up both the fire glazing so I'm not an expert in this area certainly you know Rupert Ben know a lot more than me but with the first of the options I mean I imagine fire ready glass not to be overly dramatic about it but it's there so that if a fire occurs it's a protective aspect and so um you know I don't know if you could speak to the difference between those one or two VE options and just any safety considerations. No so the original option and what we're talking about getting rid of so fire rated glass as we're calling is it's a laminated glass and ceramic layers that essentially the glass itself is fireproof if there was a fire on one side given the rating of the glass which is a function of the thickness it would be one hour or two hours depending on the rating before the fire got through the glass itself what the larger item here is suggesting is taking that glass and replacing it with essentially normal glass but installing sprinklers directly adjacent to the glass that will wash in the event of both sides in the event of a fire the um glass that would have been rated will essentially have a sheet of water on it at all times so you are protected by the same fire protection system that is protecting the rest of the building and before the I hate to use the word affordable but before the technology of the ceramic glass became affordable even though it's $350 square foot which is why we're looking to get rid of it um the uh the uh the system that we're proposing it was the standard for uh keeping the rating in a glass stair there are some complications you can't have a horizontal mullion because it would stop the flow of the water coming down but we were not showing that anyway so they both are fire rated it's just one is done with the sprinkler and one is done with the glass itself you know it's and that's really helpful I that's what I was gathering when you were talking before I just think you know we hear about safety obviously that's and forefront of everyone's mind and I think that maybe I need to hear it again but but I think it's a good thing both for me but also for most of the public to hear um about the different approaches that it's not leaving a hallway um or a staircase uh more vulnerable it's trying to resolve a challenge in different fashion um so I didn't mean to belabor the point and and you know certainly I didn't mean to cut you off right either you want to jump in but I just thought that was a really important point to me I'm sorry Rick well just the fire rated glass by the code is actually considered a wall because it carries a rating where the old way of doing it it was protecting the opening it was considered an opening in the wall so that option of protecting protecting an opening in the wall was lost when we the building codes changed but that's the difference between the two approaches Jonathan has his hand up so I my question is related to that that same item um while I would love to net that full change um prudence suggests unless you've had in the last 10 years successfully argued this with a with a billion specter um I would I would you know just for conservatism I would carry the other option even though I would prefer to have more glass until you can until you have the time to to walk this through with with our inspection services here in town um because if given the change if you haven't if you don't if you don't have some if you haven't successfully pulled off this this alternate approach lately I would prefer to carry a more conservative number we we have pulled it off in the last year okay uh and that was getting both the fire department and the building commissioner to sign off on it okay but it was a different building type well I would encourage you to have that conversation early so so what we can do Jonathan I guess I guess you're right because this is it's not something we can say let's just take maybe what we'll do is we'll carry the lesser number at the end of this and then set up a meeting with the building commissioner to review this and the kindergarten classroom doors that was um Donna so and Tim I was going to suggest just what John Jonathan did and I think the simple way is you change the the 50 to yes and the other one to potential you know as opposed and you're not taking it um I also I wanted to talk about the transoms um where you didn't take it um I think uh I agree with not taking it Tim um outside the project areas as I uh or or you took 40 percent my question was did the picture we just say did it already have the 40 percent removed the picture we saw did have the 40 percent removed okay because I think those transoms are really important for the light that's coming into the project area so as long as as long as we continue to have that um so I think those were that was my only comment on it and the things you didn't take I agree with not taking so and so there's not anything at least there's nothing I see on your list I would take off so I'll stop talking Db's hand is up um I uh might question removing the exterior kindergarten doors um I'm thinking um in some type of of emergency those are the kiddos that ultimately um may be the most nervous not having to navigate um interior hallways at a time like that might be um prudent um and if that is a uh sticking point for the committee then I would love to see um because I just am not envisioning it right now what that walk looks like just you know normal for the kindergartners to come through the hallways and out the doors how close they are um those kinds of things um that was just my first sort of thought on that I think um the kiddos being anxious about not being able to um exit the building quickly in case of an emergency I'm not sure that that's the first thing on their mind right it as long as there's a path and the staff I'll defer to Tammy and Mike on that I think I think they're the ones really to respond to that um we've had kindergartens on several of our buildings on the second floor so so there is no second means out right like straight up like they're on the second floor so it is um absolutely doable and if this was 100 square feet now uh yeah 100 square feet smaller Phoebe there would be no exit there's no requirement actually 50 50 square feet right Tim 50 yeah 50 square feet smaller the the door would not be required by code right right so there there would be no so um you know if it was a general classroom we wouldn't be putting we wouldn't even be considering this we wouldn't be having this conversation so I don't know if Tammy and Mike want to chime in on that Mike yeah I can just speak briefly which is I mean I think the key thing is whether it's going to be used just for egress or for regular use right regular use because kindergartens do outside a lot I get it but what I thought I heard earlier was that for these if a regular use then there's a whole bunch of other factors um they're supposed to go into it so you know Tammy and I can go back and have some conversations with you know folks who directly work in kindergarten and I mean bring that back to the next meeting I think that'd be kind of wise but um if it's simply just for emergency egress and we're not using it on a regular basis I I agree I don't think kindergarteners are thinking of emergencies in the same way adults are thinking of emergencies um but you know for me the sort of upside when I saw the doors originally was that you know we our kindergarten we do want them outside more often but it's that's not the primary purpose of the door especially as we live in New England and you know all the other components of it and then the safety features which I think Rupert may or may not be raising his hand for but you know having more doors in and more doors out you know uh I think folks who are interested in safety would advise us to have to reduce the number of ways in that's uh positive safety development in terms of the structure development so you know but Tammy and I you know certainly can connect and try to talk to people who are working in kindergartens and get back to you so Rupert I think Tammy does not have her hand up so I'm going to call on Rupert. Sure I I like to support removing the doors for both security purposes and energy purposes and also just to point out that if the doors are there people will want to use them and that will create other issues for us so that's my position that's my perspective at the moment anyway open to hearing other perspectives okay I'm not seeing other hands on that but so um Margaret I just need to do a time check it's 10 25 um it's 10 25 and I posted this as going to 11 but I don't um might uh I know Sean had to leave from Paul said he might have to leave so just can everybody stay until 11 um okay so I'm seeing nodded heads that's that's all so we can try to get through this list that'd be great thank you if there are no further questions I also have to leave Angelica when do you need to leave I just need to head off by any minute 10 30 okay so let's see how much we can get through we we will still have a quorum if we lose too many more people we won't but so we'll keep going sorry we're going to move to the mechanical systems there are only two under straight and mechanical and one is plumbing but uh Rupert still has his hand up Rupert he's good yeah he just didn't play okay uh the first is two we have uh sensor faucets uh specified and we were replacing them with uh mechanical metered faucets meaning you press a button and the water stays on for a certain amount um and checking back through our meeting notes that was actually Rupert's stated preference so I don't think he would object but you are in fact touching uh the faucet which you wouldn't flip with the sensor uh faucets and pictures uh but it does yield the savings of 34 000 so uh it is on the list the other item under mechanical is a large item um and we just want to explain how this works so the chilled beams the terminal units for the heating system uh have four pipes going to them it's a return for hot and cold water so at any time if the thermostat in the room tells the units they can be heating they can be heating or they can be cooling regardless of what the units in the next room are doing so all of the rooms function independently um but a typical cost savings item is to replace it that four pipe system with a two pipe system uh where the entire building would either be heating or cooling we are not suggesting that we are suggesting putting a valve station in each room that will make each room able to heat or cool individually but not the individual terminal units within each room so any classroom can either be heating or cooling so in a hypothetical situation where on the north side of the building all of the classrooms were in a heating mode in the winter but they might actually be in a cold cooling mode in the winter show season because there's a lot of sunlight coming in that is still on the table but because you've eliminated a lot of piping and piping is one of those very expensive items now this yields a savings of $580,000 and we recommend taking it there is some additional complexity moving parts this is one is really to Rupert but the system will perform the way it would if it was a complete four pipe system and rejected heat from rooms that you are cooling can still be used to um add heat to the system so functionally it's the same but there are more moving parts and complexity so those are the two items we have under mechanical and uh probably um I would think the floor is Rupert's for this um and he has his hand up and I've unmuted already before being recognized so uh Tim my understanding would be in a four pipe system you would have a heating valve and a cooling valve at each chill beam and uh when we change to this model we would still have a heating valve and a cooling valve but it would be for the entire room and it would be located maybe in the hallway or something is that what we're talking about is correct you would still have the four pipe system in the corridor you would still have hot and cold and return in the corridor but then that valve rather than being at each terminal unit would be I don't know whether it would be in the classroom or on the corridor side of the wall but yes you would be consolidating valves essentially so the so net result there would be less piping inside the classroom and potentially a net reduction in control valves or would it be the same number of control valves uh you would be removing the valves at the units but they might be integral with the unit and replacing it with a separate valve station so I guess technically the total number of valves would go down but the items in the system may go up I mean this is definitely worth a conversation with our engineer to to fully make sure that you are comfortable with everything that is involved but but but we do recommend it yeah no I was prepared to dig my heels in on a two pipe system until I got the explanation so thank you very much I appreciate that it does seem like it has possibilities for us my main concern probably would be how easy we can make it to get at the control valves service and replace them how much space will you be able to give them to and what height will they be at so that we can we can work on yes those are sort of minor questions and concerns I think compared to overall I'm I'm shocked at the at the change in pricing but you know I guess we all are well if yes if you were to put the valve station just inside the classroom wall for example example so you would be accessing the valve uh above a what's our ceiling height 10 for Tim yes above it from a ladder above uh lay in acoustic ceiling that's at 10 feet 4 above the floor so it could be I don't know 11 feet right 11 and a half feet through uh really opening in the ceiling and we could have some removable grid so that there's more room around it nice nice and presumably the the chilled beams are up high anyway right it doesn't change needing a ladder to work on the valves yeah would it be about the same situation uh if the valves were at the the chilled beams in terms of access and what you need to get to them yep yep I guess I would want to think about uh desirability of putting the valves valve access in the hallway so that we could work on systems while kids were in the classroom but the corridors are still a concern so yeah so we we uh Jonathan you have your hand up do you want to add to it yeah there I think I've managed to unmute myself I don't I yeah I I'm glad to leave most of this review between the design team and Rupert um but only wanted to add that you know both this category and the next one electrical you know these are often very high ticket items and so you know as we move forward um it's it's an area where we just want to make sure we're always kind of keeping our pencils as sharp as possible I know you're going to do that um but uh they're you know if there are additional savings that that develop as the review goes on I'm sure the committee as a whole would love to see some yeah and I think just just to that point in what Tim was saying we were incredibly surprised by the change in the unit costs um and you know for example piping right so for us this was unbelievable um if we had known at the very beginning of this whole conversation that that that we were putting a five hundred thousand dollar added cost to the project um we never would have suggested it to begin with but it was it's just where materials are right now and that um there are certain ones that are currently streamed premiums but this this cost wasn't yielding this savings or this effort wasn't yielding the savings earlier so I just don't want anyone to think that we were not designing the most cost-effective system in the past no it's a it's a market change that's going to result in design intentions changing going forward okay let's keep going keeping an eye on the time here um I don't expect a resolution on that so we can move into the electrical line items which are also a bit in the weeds but uh we can go through them and and see if there anything that anyone objects to um the first three are all adjusting the scope of lighting fixtures one is within the building uh the way uh that was costed at this time we we we did a layout but the layout was conservative and based on other projects uh so we feel that without too much effort we can reduce the total scope of the interior lighting package by 10% either through a reduction or a change in the type of fixtures um the same uh similar uh concept for exterior lighting exterior lighting broken out into two separate items which is one the parking lot and the driveways and also there's a series of poles for pedestrian lights around the building and in both the parking lot and the pedestrian poles around the building we have them closed pretty spacely and we haven't had a full discussion about what the appropriate light levels are so we're fairly confident that we can um either reduce the spacing or the number of fixtures to yield some savings there so we recommend taking those items it's 140,000 in the building and an aggregate of 40,000 outside the building uh the next item is just uh a reduction in the size of the switchboard to 3,000 amps there's only feeders for 3,000 amps in the building so there is really no reason to have a 4,000 amps per part other than future expansion which um is still a competition yes which we still have room for so um we feel that this is an easy one to take at $83,000 um um the next ones are to change from copper feeders to aluminum feeders um copper is sort of the standard but aluminum is allowed by code and there is a certain data that it performs well in certain areas like expansion and oxidation uh so we feel that using them is perfectly acceptable um unless we have any comments from Rupert or the facility SAF but there are the savings of 16,000 um for the secondaries and then for the generator there's another 36,000 in saving I was kind of surprised that this number was so small but I assume that means the cost of aluminum has gone up a lot uh the cost of the unfortunately that is reflected in our window number so I guess we can't get the savings here and then exactly as well and everyone switch into aluminum because copper is so expensive you can't get cost prohibitive we had fairly generous allowances for sound systems in the cafeteria and the gymnasium 75 and 85 thousand dollars we feel that we could cut that by 70 thousand dollars and and still provide a system that is more than adequate for the level of performance and audio requirements um in both spaces we do recommend taking that so what you're going to keep in is 75 and 85 and that represents taking out 70 is that right it represents taking out 70 of the combined 75 plus 80 so it would be 90 between the two so it would be 45 for each system okay um the next is to remove the concrete duct banked around the conduit for the feeders on site from the generator so you would end up with a direct buried PVC conduit which is um perfectly acceptable it's just a matter of what the facility standards are uh in case in concrete is durable it prevents against anything that could happen but direct buried PVC is acceptable that would yield 40 000 dollars um the next item the future uh duct bank for the athletic field lighting comfort station it's a matter of changing the routing instead of going from the street it would go to the transformer that's already on site it would still be separately metered from the school but you'd be saving some lengths so there would be a savings there of 80 000 dollars the next is to delete electric hand dryers that we had shown in the multi fixture toilet rooms and staff toilet rooms um that you know obviously we have to have the complete conversation on what the school wants in terms of trying to whether it's paper towels or I don't think we ever came to a complete closure on that discussion but if we do eliminate them from the design that's uh 56 000 dollars um and then in line with school policy and the desires of amherst in terms of what they want in terms of interior cameras we have reduced the numbers that were shown on the sd drawings uh both exterior and interior remaining only at the entrances at the large public spaces there were some cameras that were shown in the corridors and on the upper floors that were removed so in aggregate that takes out um 87 000 dollars and then we also there's another line item for the cameras in the parking lot which is another 50 000 dollars so all of this needs to be reviewed with the school and public safety but from what we've heard so far this puts the number of cameras more in line with what we've heard of what is acceptable to the town and that is the list and we don't okay for any of that exactly any comments on any of those before we title to Rupert has to say yes Rupert sorry of course I have comments um uh most of these make sense to me there's a couple of concerns um uh as I understand it the uh feeders from the transformer and from the street are going to be going underneath parking lots and roadways driveways um and so my personal feeling is the the added risk uh that aluminum conductors have for getting degraded and failing um is too high um and so I would like to suggest that that for the feeders we want the more durable more longer lasting more reliable copper um and uh but uh yeah direct very tvc no problem um 3000 amp switchboard no problem all the lighting things no problem um I guess the only other one that that I would I would rather not see is uh limiting the paper tell the sponsors I mean adding paper tell the sponsors I think that that the operating costs for that um over time with labor and materials makes it really not worth it um in my opinion I'll stop there then you you had your hand up and then took it down good Rupert your question kind of stole my thunder yeah okay well the good news is the two of you thinking like I see php's hand up so I just want to clarify um and make sure that I didn't misunderstand what you were saying removing the um athletic field duck bank system I'm trying to read exactly what you have here um so that's not like we would still have electrical and plumbing run to what will potentially be a future you know comfort station or whatever we're calling it um that's just running it differently that we had than we had originally anticipated if I could get an indication on that okay yeah so it says remove it but it it should say remove and replace so instead of um going from the athletic portion of the site directly west to the street it goes to the transformer which is on site by the parking lot so at so that reduction in the connections and linear distance saves some money and and there is no future plumbing as for the plumbing component of the comfort station the last discussions were that it could be composting type toilets and not have plumbing so there is no plumbing component for future in this estimate so I'm not seeing any other hands up with questions so I think we changed a few of these to potential but I didn't hear people taking anything major off the list um so here's my suggestion since I know we have some other things we're going to have to get through pretty quickly Margaret I don't think we're going to have time for you to do the overall today but you can say how quickly you can do it um is that people take this list I know we none of us had very long to look at this and I have a couple at least one thing that's not on the list but I'll just wait till next week um and if you have any other items if you send them through to me you know by Monday or Tuesday I'll make sure I get them to Dinesco um because some of these have been easy for them to estimate some of them have been a lot of extra work I mean the easiest is when we just eliminate one of the line items um so but I do I see Jonathan's hand is up but I do want to find out about next Friday and so I will probably just use a poll because I think it's an important next having a meeting next week is important so I just want to make sure we can make sure we have enough people there who would want to be there and I won't take time to do that today um but I've got at least three people who said they can't be there next week so um I'll stop so I see both John Jonathan as his hand up and I don't with the Rupert put his hand back up again yes okay so Rupert and Jonathan oh I just regarding the um direct barrier PVC conduits uh the code would allow um non direct burial cables inside the conduits as a as a precaution I would recommend having DV rated wiring inside the PVC it still should be a net savings on the uh on the overall cost thank you and my comment was more just to thank the design team for the thoroughness of the materials they had to present today this is a difficult thing to get through um even if we have two or three meetings to do and I found this very a very helpful way to present the the complex cost information and the the long matrix of of items that we have under consideration so yeah and I just I want to second that and also for people who wish they had gotten them a week earlier one the the reconciliation that happened last Thursday was eight plus hours and then the work went on all weekend Monday and Monday to get us this list um it as you can see it wasn't just a strike this one so I want to thank you for the extraordinary amount of extra work that just went on thank you very much because this bringing us the 10 million dollar oh dear list with a here's some things we can do about it was extremely helpful um well knowing knowing what none of none of none of this is pleasant for any of us um and I even think Margaret um you know even the cost estimators we were all equally shocked by the increase in six months and I think some of it what you'll see again in the overall cost estimate was we're still carrying a high escalation rate because we just don't know when this is going to end so yeah it's just a stinky time to be in this market Margaret can we wait on the invoices till next week do we have time to wait on the invoices we can wait on the invoices till next week in my opinion um the I it's 1049 and I'm a guessing we have some public comment I think we also need to wait on the presentation of the total project budget so I just want to quickly flash up on the screen or a reminder about what's coming so just going back to the agenda so we're going to meet next week at some point TBD um to look to to sort of kind of wrap this up and at that point I will talk about the total project budget which includes the soft costs then we have the community forums coming up um then um on the 27th we have an opportunity to meet again to to sort of further hopefully finalize this discussion and talk about the feedback from the community forum there is also a February 3rd not wanting to add meetings but I will say there's also a February 3rd Friday which is not shown here but the next meeting after this one that's scheduled is February 10th at which point we would be looking we would need to have by this point I would say the 27th the elitist comment question we would need to have finalized the cost because then the team is assembling the schematic design document which would be shared with you for this February 10th meeting and then we have the scheduled vote to submit it on the 17th the following week is school vacation week so that's probably our last the 17th probably realistic early our last chance to get together before the submission has to be sent into the MSBA so um that is kind of the overview Margaret just if I could just quickly add um MSBA requires this V list whether we take the alternate the alternates or the substitutions so this list whether it's they're accepted or not we will continue to carry the items that we don't accept as the design continues we'll continue to add items to the list as well just as as the design continues we may start be able to start looking at things alternatively or in a different way so the the list just because there knows now doesn't mean it's gone and forgotten we'll continue to carry those and then based on people's responses other considerations we can add those to the list going forward so this isn't the end all I guess is what I'm trying to say yeah and as Mike pointed out and that as we go through the process that we're going to continue to have check-ins on the estimate so it's this is a model for how we are likely to discuss the cost of the project as each phase wraps up so so at that point I think if there's public comment that's what we need to toggle to I'm not seeing any other hands up so we are open for public comment and I see two I'm in control I think so I'm going to Bruce I have allowed you to talk if you unmute and I would ask that each of you keep it short but we welcome any written comments Bruce I will keep it short first I think really important to echo what Jonathan and you Kathy said about this process and Denisco and Margaret and so forth it's really quite phenomenal I'm very pleased to have received all this stuff and I I think the way Tim and Donna and Rick Rich you facilitated the discussion is also noteworthy because it really was a long complicated list and it's a big committee and there's others out there as well so congratulations on that I am going to send you Kathy or the written thing so I'm not going to say too much now but I did have a question that I will put on this but I wonder whether we're able to use pecs you've talked repeatedly about the cost of piping and so we're not able to use pecs instead of type L copper Tim's not shaking his head so that's unfortunate I think but maybe we don't have to get into conversations about that I will send my out of this to you Kathy I've got a few comments and thoughts about how we could reduce site work so thank you all very much thank you okay Rudy Rudy we heard heard you for a second and then you disappeared you just say I think right how's that there we go yeah excellent I I just wanted to also thank the design team I thought this was phenomenal work uh oh I might have removed you sorry I won't take it personally one more time thanks to the design team I I just thought this was phenomenal work and phenomenal presentation thank you so much I'm glad we have you on the case um if you add fencing to the list of the grid of possible cuts I think it might be useful to split it into two or three fencing parts the basketball separately from the four foot fencing around the playground areas and maybe between the two playground areas if as I recall the youngest kids are in the area closest to the driveway and and parking I could see that you might make a decision to keep that fencing but delete others so maybe break those out three ways um thanks so much I'll probably send some written comments but that's it thank you Rudy Maria there we go we should be able to talk all right so um I'd like to make a suggestion for Kathy and the Denisco team given the the volume and complexity of the materials that we're dealing with and the number of people who would want to have input between building committee members and interested members of the public can I suggest that um all of the comments um including what Denisco is presented and what you receive is put into a master document perhaps organized by the the cost estimates so that we can understand the recommended changes questions suggestions and answers by Denisco on each of the items and that that may be made available prior to the next meeting if people can get that into you as soon as possible to make the next meeting more productive um I had some specific questions about something that wasn't addressed today and that's about uh given your surprise at the increase in unit prices um upon what are you basing the change uh or are the cost estimators basing their change in escalation which only went from eight to nine percent from the PSR to these um and is that sufficient I also noted that the design contingency dropped considerably from 12 down to 7.5 percent and I know that that is normal for that to decrease as the process continues as you get deeper into more details of design but is that um I want to hear more about that and whether that is a reasonable assumption and um it I found it interesting that general conditions did not um change much from Fogarty it only went from 3.3 million down to 3.2 million and for PM&C it increased from 2.6 to 3.4 million and I'd like some more information about again with the uncertainties that we're facing what are the anticipated impacts on labor um as we get to the as we get to hopefully construction of this next year thank you I'll send lots more written in comments thank you um so if if people I will take on a consolidation of comments that I get um and and we we sort of have a summary of what we discussed today so I think we're ready for the next week other than finding a time for us to meet and again I just want to thank well I want to thank everyone for staying longer today but also just to thank you for bringing us a long list with that added up to more than a small amount of money I think that was a gift to us so I think Donna your hand is up but I was going to about to say the meeting is adjourned so I just want to say that I think what we'd like to do hopefully um is reach out to the building commissioner maybe talk about the soils try to I know next week's a short week but if there's a way to engage some folks so that so that we can at least report back um whether some items are available or or or some of these reductions are possible or not okay so I will I'll work with Paul on that on on both those two pieces thank you so I think I'm not seeing any other hands up so I am going to say the meeting is adjourned at 10 59 which means we adjourned by 11 so that's great thank you everyone very much have a good rest of your day