 April 10th, 2019, and we're at the police station community room and it's being taped for broadcast by Amherst again. Call us to order. Don't believe we got the minutes to approve so we can skip that item. You cannot see any public attendance. And so, I heard a volunteer for doing notes so we can move quite quickly along today. That brings us to reviewing the draft report. I think we left off at 6 about to transition to section 6.8, but I'll just ask to make sure that no one had something that was lingering. Okay, oh sorry really. I had just a couple of things looking at it again. The discussion of power purchase agreement, I think it would be good to have an asterisk about that because section 2c of the zero energy bylaw basically doesn't my read of it and I think this is right is that it wouldn't allow it unless we exceeded, it wouldn't allow a power purchase arrangement unless we exceed the ten percent. I think since it could be an item of discussion it might be good to just know the effect you guys could do. Because that talks about town-owned new independently measured renewable energy systems for the project and if the cost exceeds that ten percent then you can do these other things. So it might just be a good qualifier. And look at me. Just tell us which section it is. Section 2c of the bylaw. Oh no, where are we in our document? Oh in our document. That's a good question. But I think there's a couple of discussions of power purchase in the class. Like for example on the... 6.2. Yeah 6.2 and I think there's it appears elsewhere where you just discussed the total cost would be a x for the solar unless we bought it. Unless we did a power purchase. Yeah page 6 of section 6. Power purchase and also appears on page 3. Renewable energy system that Amerserow energy bylaw. D item D in the summary of that. Or can be obtained through direct purchase or through leasing or power purchase agreements with third-party private entities. It might be good just to put in a qualifier. So add an asterisk to that section referring to the energy bylaw that indicates power purchase agreement. Not a lot of less the cost of the zero premium costs. Yeah unless that features exceeds half a cent. Yeah and then you have more leeway about how you're getting that purchase. And the other thing and I've been sort of nagging me a little bit. The EUI 50 I think it should just be raised as whether the EUI 50 approach would meet the standard of zero energy capable in the definition in the zero energy bylaw. Because that requires incorporating highly efficient standards to minimize the project's need for energy. And I think it should at least be an open question whether a building that just meets current energy standards meets the test of that definition. So again I think it's the kind of thing I wouldn't want to undo all the discussion because EUI 50 is probably it's important at least as a comparison. But if that's really no doing nothing really special for energy efficiency I think it should at least people should look at whether that question whether that meets. Whether it's whether it's a wise thing to do knowing that EUI 50 does not it's not really cutting edge right it's just close it's just about code it's just where we're building today EUI 30 achieves a much higher level of energy efficiency in the building. Yeah and I don't think anyone would argue that EUI 30 incorporates highly efficient standards to minimize the projects need for efficiency for energy whereas EUI 50 anyway. So again I think just an asterisk no referring people and that's in the definition of zero energy capable and section 1a of the bylaw that requires the project to be zero energy capable. Throw those thoughts in. Any other items on 6 or we'll move back to 6.8 or on to 6.8. Yeah we got through it I just want to make I don't want to go too fast. I didn't finish this one. Yeah I have a feeling like it's over. Yes but I'll remember I got to look at the notes where we left the last comments I have. My last comment had to do with your request that in option B we talked a little bit about the effect that the wetlands still in action affecting the layout of B and we said well we'll just change it. And I remember you I think had other things you want to start with yours or. Okay I had a couple of comments on section 618 page 13. Yes page 13 so there is this site for option C. And I was wondering why does the site in this version includes one of the baseball fields. I thought we had so here option C the site goes all the way at the back and crosses this wetland and why it was not agreed that it should be smaller. Why why the site limit couldn't be smaller. Yes and I think we had talked about this and I had registered them but they're drawing specials and being. Yeah so we drew a red line delineating the limit. Yes site so your question is why. It's why it doesn't go close to the playground. Yeah the horizontal lines through the playground line. Without having the opportunity to go back and look at our notes that kind of corresponds to my memory. Yes. Yeah just because it affects the cost twice. Because according to the calculations probably we'll discuss later as part of the site we are not being reversed so the title decided this. In the same page my other comment I saw a phrase that some people might get confused. It says bring it in one with the line to many of the interior classrooms. And people always say where are you. On the same page. Second line. Third line. Bringing warm winter light. Into the interior classrooms. Some people is going to scream as they wait interior classrooms. Or maybe we can rephrase it. Simply say classrooms. Coordia facing classrooms. Coordia facing classrooms. But once you have the interior people will say oh we have interior classrooms. No so second line on the top. When you start the descriptions. Bringing warm winter light to many of the interior classrooms. Yeah put Coordia maybe. To many of the. Coordia facing. To classrooms facing the Coordia. Yes. Okay. Just because it popped. This is page 13. On page 19. Option E. The third line. It was a red awkward. I couldn't. Took my while until I fully understood. It says access to play fields has potential from the gym and third through kindergarten classrooms. I mean I think you mean the classes facing the east side. Right. Or instead of labeling by grades I would label them by east facing classrooms. Sure. To me this is sort of one of those sentence fragments that need to be cleaned up. Yeah. Yeah. So just reading. And then page 26. I don't know if somebody else has more comments in between. Page 26. That goes into the day already into the architectural narrative. One of the things I had comment is general about this section is that we never discussed the architectural narrative. So this was the first time we saw it. Well we haven't discussed it but you did have it earlier as part of the pricing narrative. I think this goes to an earlier question about whether this is a historically presented as a historical thing we had or if we should look into it. I don't remember seeing this one. Maybe it was intended but I don't remember seeing the architectural narrative. I think this whole pricing narrative was what we provided to you and then we provided the estimator at the same time. Okay. So this was the basis for the estimate. We were just in this architectural narrative describing a standard of quality that we would typically see in elementary school without going through with you finishes for example. As a feasibility level we didn't want to get concerned about the kind of flooring as a finisher cost yet but we wanted to pick materials that were kind of consistent with our experience with public school work. So I didn't recall seeing this. I think the pricing narrative was really more about the HVAC systems and the other systems. So I didn't recall seeing this either. So I think I don't know that we need to go into painful detail about this. Maybe it fell out of the version we sent the intent was to have the whole narrative get to you but maybe that one wasn't an interesting one. I think the idea is to just have a justification basically. And essentially what you were saying and that the choices that were made were based on sustainability or durability or something that says why you pick those and whether they are in the in a general low, medium or high price range. So we know how these choices would have impacted the cost. Explain what we are talking about and why and that these are what we would recommend ordinarily in the classroom and why that was conveyed to the cost estimator. I think my comment was for example page 26 mentions the skylight. It says main skylight. We don't have a skylight. So I think maybe if you clarify that the that we have is very general and it's like standard and they didn't look like a skylight in the quote. I'm okay. But if not, that's page 26 of the... Page 26. It's division 8 north and windows. This sort of goes to what Maria was saying also. I think in general because I'm going to echo or bring up again something that he was just mentioning again is we talked about this last time that if there are substantive elements in the pricing narrative that have in fact evolved or changed, I think we'd want to make sure that they were captured here. If this is actually the document that we used to do the pricing narrative that's been updated to include any changes that have happened since then, then I am four squarely against going through this and editing it because entire point is it's a document that in fact historically was used as part of this process and so the point being going back to what Maria was saying is at the beginning of it, I think it would be important to do two things. One to explain as she was suggesting how decisions were made around different elements, different finishing, pricing, all that kind of stuff. The criteria that you're using. And then I think second, literally how is this pricing narrative used? Like I'm seeing this in because I had this feeling when I was reading through the whole document that when I hit the pricing narrative it felt like at the Old Sesame Street one of these things is not like the others. The other chapters whether we wanted them edited in some way or not told were trying to tell and were clearly trying to tell a coherent story about what they were about. When I hit this portion of the section I'm like I don't understand why I'm looking. I mean I got why we were looking at it because I get what it was but I was not sure why the reader was looking at it and what they're supposed to get out of it and I just think at the beginning it's important to place that context so when someone's looking at it they get what they're looking at and they get what they might learn from it when they're digging through it. And I don't think it needs to be really long. In fact I think it's better if it's not so you know their eyes don't clades over it and they actually see it. Well I think this also goes to what we talked about before the executive summary in the beginning explaining this is what you're going to see in those sections and this is why they're in there and that was the process that was used in informing the process. And I think that makes sense and then carrying it over to the introduction of the chapter so that somebody goes there directly and they can sit there as well. Another possibility is you could move this whole section to the appendix. If you want to break it out of the rest of the report which I think reads although being at 6.8 it's like the first item in the appendix practically so maybe it's not that big a deal. So I have a comment because I don't think this is the document that they use for press quoting because there are some things here that were not included so I want to make sure that it's not counting. So for example in page 25 of this document division 7 thermal and moisture protection says as for all new constructions all in options ABC and E&E provide an understabbed waterproofing membrane and then for the other ones talk about drainage and so on. So this is the... This was modified after the geotechnical report. So this is not what it was used. But the pricing was also modified to include that. Yes. And so this corresponds to the final pricing we hope. We've tried that. I want to make sure that we don't double count. So if this was the original and then you modify it I want to make sure that this has already been modified and we are not double counting. They didn't include this in the original price narrative but this part on the second part. So that's... So it's good. Okay. Yeah but it's not the one... It's not the original. Well I... I think fine. Yeah I mean I think... If you actually listen to what I said a moment ago what I actually said was the original pricing narrative as used with additional edits for updates for construction modification. I mean that's exactly what I mean it's paraphrase of exactly what I said a moment ago. Okay. And that's exactly what this section reflects. We just need to explain so that the reader knows what's that. Yeah. I know what we're looking at. Maria? I just wanted to get a clarification on a couple of these options I think seen for sure E. So we're on like page 19. There's that 4,000... I think that says 4,000 square foot wetland soils area to be relocated. So on the left hand side in the north is that what needs to be moved or is that where things are moving to because of fields touching in the south? Can you just clarify that? Yeah that needs to be moved. Okay. And that needs to be moved because the play area there... Yeah we're within the setbacks of that. So we're assuming it needs to move so that our disturbance will be outside of the setbacks. We're looking at the building primarily there. The lines? Where? The corner of the new addition comes very close to the red line of the wetland. It's within the two setback lines. So the setback lines have been revised and the building is just touching that outer new setback line after the red area is relocated. So I guess I'm not saying the setback line. Is that dashed curving line that sweeps right through the corner of the building? I'm showing D page 16. Oh you're on D. I'm on C. Sorry. I'm on E. Oh good. I saw a little dashed line. I can see a dashed line also. Yeah. So on E. Exactly. You know it's saying that you have to... And the only thing that I see that's crossing the... There's two dotted lines. One's a 15, one's a 100 foot setback. Right. And they're both crossing that play area. Yeah. And they're drawn around the wetland after the relocation has happened. So that may be a little bit confusing. I can understand that. Right. I think Maria's getting... Again I think this is one of these issues about design came first and wetlands after. The playground could be moved. It would be easy to find another spot for the playground. Please look. This is as it currently is. No relocation in D. And then in E you were showing it relocated because of the play area. Right. So the new lines... They do sweep through a little bit of play area but that's the further out boundary. So can we add a note on the diagram that says wetland has to be mitigated? Well I guess the question is be bad or move the play area. Because it's not the building that it touches and kind of likewise I don't know if any of the fields in the south end they look like two soccer field, two rectangular fields that cross the wetlands. Is that implying that that's got any implication for those fields? Those existing fields. Right. So they're not really an issue? Yeah. It just kind of... If you're looking at this and you're just like I know that I'm supposed to be looking for the wetlands and where there's setbacks and where there's actual wetlands and what's touching it. So I would look at that and say and I would raise a question. It's just like is that field causing an issue and having it to move things? And up here the play area, the 5 through 12 play area in the northeast corner you could move... I mean we could put that in some other place and avoid touching those wetlands altogether. I mean this is the kind of thing that we could... So a note that says playground in this area will affect wetlands and will require wetlands identification. Or move the play area. I guess the question I would have is at this stage is what is the potential risk of adding the note as Richard has said acknowledging that there may be other ways to do it or maybe the note says in this configuration. A playground in this area will affect wetlands and will cause mitigation to be required. And in the other end we say existing play fields or play fields already exist mitigation not required. I mean it's more of an and. I'm fine with saying that if the playgrounds stay where they are right now you would have to mitigate and that's fine. Or you move the playground and the ones... So I think it's basically explaining that we did the designs before we had the survey and so you could make different choices with the site that could avoid the wetlands altogether or you'd have to mitigate for them. Correct. So there are strategies you could take. Exactly. But that's actually a nice explanation because it sort of lays out for someone. Yeah. Exactly what you're at. And I would include it in the executive summary at the beginning. Yes. That phrase. So that is very clear from the beginning and maybe... That wetlands were defined sometimes after these diagrams were done. Yeah. So and that wetlands delineation can affect the project going forward. And cause of mitigation based. Right. So something in the executive session that explains the sequence of wetlands delineation after the diagramming is done and then some note of this plan that kind of flies there. I think there's a couple of the other ones as well. I annotated it. And I think you've got those so you can see those. You might be in C as well. It'll come up again when we talk about A. Okay. Other comments, questions on 6.28. Remind me and as we move on was there a 7? I don't recall. What would the intent of... There was something in the table of contents as I recall. Right. The local actions and approvals is what MSBA does for section 7. Okay. So that's kind of downstream of this. That's their form that... There's the local actions and approval form which the committee needs to sign and I think it's the superintendent and certain people in town have to sign off on this as the preferred alternative. So obviously we're not doing that. But the section also typically has the meeting minutes. And so it could be used here I think to... We could put all the meeting minutes here for record if that makes sense to you. We could also put some of the community outreach documentation here or we could just eliminate it. So I just want to know if you thought that should be recorded in the report or that's recorded elsewhere. Preferred that way. Yeah, I thought last time Heather was here and she had some notes from the public outreach sessions. We talked about putting them in here and explaining that this section is for that activity and this is from there. That activity occurred. That's what I thought. Community outline stuff makes sense. Not really in a whole community. Outline stuff is really in one good place right now so I think that makes sense in the report. Opposed to putting minutes in there. I think that's going to be loaded. They're already in one repository on the town website. Can I ask a question about that? I mean eventually when the work of the committee is done is there a formal repository that someone can always go to online or do it? Do you think that's going to have to go and access the things in paper form? No, I mean they don't even exist in paper form really. They're kind of online only. But I mean the site, the archive page will get moved into an archive section. All of it will all be there. Then the public can access that archive. Confirm it to you again. There. Do you think we readily have a list of all of our meetings? Like the dates? I believe so. I'm just going to say, if the minutes really are archived and Amherst Media has the video I'm not opposed to not putting the minutes in but I think it's actually important to put all of the dates of our meetings in there and then the public meetings as well. I think that plus actually the summary sort of plan and execution that Heather put together should all be in there. I think it's important to have that in there. I was going to say the same thing. It's a very typical MSBA thing. They like to see lists of dates. So, fine. But the other thing that we might want to do is to give a little bit of chronology of our committee. Who asked for it? When was it formed? When did the school committee form us? I think that would be a bit of a timeline. That could be a kind of preamble to them the long list of meetings. The easiest place to get a list of all our meetings would be on the minutes page. If you click on all minutes it has in chronological order every meeting we've had linked to the minutes and our front page also has a rather sketchy timeline but you could build something a little more readable out of it. So, some sort of introductory paragraphs that we cobble together from that information have a list of all the meetings that have occurred. The public meetings are outreach meetings that have occurred. Honestly, I wonder if it might make sense for us to develop that because these guys would come in eight months into the project. That feels very much like an Excel spreadsheet which I love. Okay, I'm going to write that down. I will take that off. Great. So did we decide to put in the minutes from the two community outreach sessions because that's the one exception I would suggest. I understand not having all our meetings but the comments from the public had our official outreach sessions. I don't think the minutes are not a verbatim record of it and so in a lot of ways the video is the best way to kind of get that. I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I'm just kind of thinking of the downsides that come with that. I don't know if I should speak again. The minutes of the community outreach thing that I think they open with the presentation attachment A presented and then it's just the questions I think. So I'm not sure how illuminating those are. I'm also against it because it kind of gives more weight to the people that came to that rather than the people that slept out here for our regular meetings or communicated with us by email. I don't know. I'm not sure we're going to include all of that. I think we should make a point in whatever sort of little introductory lists and meetings and stuff to make a point of the availability. We should give the link in the document so someone knows where exactly to go on the town website in Amherst Media to find this stuff so that we're really helping the available people to find the best record they can find of this. So we're live on. Will Amherst Media that you guys want to have a like they're on YouTube. So fill the air out as long as YouTube is. Okay. Topic topic for another day. I was about to hear comments on section seven. We're going to look for that. Yes. That essentially becomes a production issue but they need to have that to be able to finalize the report. I have one last comment. Oh sorry. Six point eight. The issue about the site you have them again on the end of the section when you put in the sites so when I was talking about what page are you on? Probably page 157 for example. Okay. So at the end of the narrative for pricing we have all the drawings. Yes. So the site drawings appear there as well. Yes. So section 157 is written down is the one that corresponds to option C. So again the site I think that one should be shunned down to the the actual site. So here. All the same comments. So the same comments applied to these ones at the end. So that's not to forget about this. That's my general comment. Maybe on those I see the dotted lines and I know that those are setbacks but maybe a little legend. A label would be helpful. I have to go back to section Six point eight. Six point eight. Sorry. Anymore on six point eight or so let's move on to eight. I'm just going to do a prototype that we would like to begin with page 40 just fixing the date on that getting to November 2018. And can you it says mechanical additive options there we should somewhere say that we're employing HVAC option six. I mean it's sort of implied but it's not specifically stated because it has options one through five. And then I've got on all of the following ones like for 41 through whatever you know A through F again the date but to specifically state at the top that this is these are for EUI 50 HVAC option six CM method and a 2020 start year I'll be pouring out. So it's 41 through 46 I guess yeah well F is 46 and then I'm going to make I talked last time about making the pitch for at least options definitely for A and possibly for B as well including EUI 30 and the GC method and how having like a similar sheet to this but for option A GC, EUI 30 HVAC 5 which is essentially the case study but it would be nice to see it laid out in this format a comparison. Okay so another chart that has EUI 30 HVAC 5 GC GC method and still you know the start year should be the same so make the labeling even more important so you're looking at it between the two shouldn't we explain why we're doing that additional chart yeah I mean we do you do that in the case that I can't remember which one that was but we can reference that or maybe we can include it if you're going to do this is probably what you should do yeah I have a general comment about the appendix if you could make a list at the beginning appendix A1 this page so and so appendix A2 so the table contents will have page numbers it does list all the appendix sections okay so you'll be able to that even maybe also that's because I didn't have that at hand and I was going through the appendix trying to find working on pdx you don't see the table contents yeah there are there's sections it's 8.4 cost estimates there's a page break yeah okay and then my other comment was I think I sent you this question the other day when you do you start in page 47 the summary new construction total addition total renovation total I think this needs a little bit of explanation of why these numbers to what do they correspond because for me it took me a while I think you mentioned oh we just chose numbers to put you're on page 47 47 and 48 really it's like you're seeing what I'm saying yeah okay so it says new construction addition total oh okay and when I was reading this I was wondering to which to correspond and when you start looking at the square footage the total square footage 48 at the top in the description you have a device with a thousand square foot as for the new construction 23,000 for the the addition and so for the renovation but it has a nice so it was hard to understand why you have these numbers I think it needs a clarification if it's okay we could add a clarifying statement that the following information is a building up of the cost per square foot for new construction addition and renovation but it's only for the renovation portion of option B I think because it's 23,000 square foot only to the renovation part only to the yeah the square footage I don't actually make a big difference because we're estimating addition cost per square foot yeah but once I see these numbers then I said oh but they happen to correspond with various options but the take away is a cost per square foot which is then applied to all the options so it could be it's rather irrelevant that they happen to correspond it could be done without putting for per 23,000 2268 I mean 10,000 square foot I think are you wanting to maybe clarify at the top of 47 so rather than having the number of square feet just saying cost per square foot for new cost per square foot for add cost per square foot for renovation well that becomes the take away of all this detail estimate here it builds up to be the cost per square foot for new add and reno and then those are utilized in the previous pages according to the proportions of new add and reno in each option which I think you get that and so I think having the detail here and we could just remove the detail if this is confusing I thought it would add credibility oh no we didn't I think it's confusing to try to figure when it's listed as a certain number of square feet on the first page that little box at the top of 47 I see what you mean right so if you just got rid of the number of square feet and just say for new construction the cost per square foot is 296.75 and you might want to say direct cost here and there is also pointing out that those square footages keep coming back right through all the details and so that's the way this was developed is there was a sort of sampling of the options that were used to estimate cost per square footages for those different types of construction would it be better to just remove that box if that's confusing if that's enough I'm just pointing out that those square footages will continue to show up if they're deemed confusing I think you need that box with the final number I'm going to say this is going to be a very dense piece for any lay to make their way through that's my I want us to make this as clear as we can so I'm not trying to in any way cut off suggestions but it's going to be this is a deep dive it is to me if the number of square feet that's enumerated at the top is a challenge then I would go what Maria said just get rid of it and just put it in the cost per square footage for the different options or different approaches just fine and then just move on at the same time this is we're editing Fogarty's document I don't think that's a problem the estimate we're changing the format so the table of cost per square foot is useful and maybe that should be a big bold font because those are the numbers that we use fine font is too much detail for the lay reader but in the big bold box with the big bold fonts maybe it needs a description of what that is the average of all the numbers below right and specifically because people are going to look at that and say why are those 200 and the other ones are 500 specifically say these are direct costs we're not even at construction cost per square foot and we're definitely not total project cost so I think some explanation of that it helps I think that they correlate on the next page on the first page on the summaries so I mean you can see that additions carried at 399 59 I hope yes it is alright consistency I think if you're going to explain not the first page but the second page that box it wouldn't harm anything to say it's direct cost not total construction cost it doesn't harm anything somebody would explain how I get up honestly I think you're right though you said a moment ago I wouldn't go you'd have to write a textbook on how to understand something like this in order to actually make it genuinely approachable and that is not what we're paying you to do so having said all that stuff about the square feet there is something on page 48 where there is a 1030 slab on grade reno which shows up in the new column that was just a bobs and needs to go away and I don't know if that well I guess that would change it will slightly reduce the cost of square foot of new construction I'm not sure who's demo who knows I'm looking the red all red writing that's me you're like this is cool it's like a mystery science theater or something like that you're actually watching her comments before she makes them this is I'm looking at her a little bit because that would be much more entertaining that would be the ones that go next or moving right along I'll go page 51 the granite curb existing conditions report says that we're going to be reusing those are we reusing those and this is additional did they did they account for that I don't know it doesn't look like we're reusing them yeah the truth is reusing granite curbs is a kind of losing proposition the amount of effort that it takes to salvage them whether they end up being exactly the shape and lengths that you need I've seen projects of which contractors say I'm going to pull out the curbs stockpile I'll buy new curbs so maybe maybe we need to add maybe we'll need to edit the existing conditions with footnotes says that where possible or alternatively replace them with new if it's more cost-effective because that's what that's the manner he said it's more consistent with our experience if we are going to do that again I mean wouldn't want to go back and edit with the existing conditions but best to say or you can make this choice which is to use new and then hopefully get that back to a restore and have somebody else use it at least to be environmentally sure I mean if we're doing a lead project we'll have to be managing all that way to get a factory store so I think just making a note I mean I think it's a cost estimator's decision like what's more cost-effective right it's not any technical what would come up during construction I really don't want to deal with this we'll make sure it gets recycled but I'm going to put in new yeah it's going to get covered by the natural process of construction but the cost estimator will do the thing it's more cost-effective and hopefully we won't do the thing that makes sense for recycle reviews so do we need do we need like a some commentary for the the estimate that says that they explain these things how would that be if we cannot add them because I think these are things that we are talking now and it would be good to we are generating this knowledge and I think we want to transmit it people are not going to come and start looking at the videos and I think if in the narrative we're saying they are reusable and here they've been quoting an explanation why we can do that we can we can insert some narrative before the cost estimate that flags these kind of discrepancies between the existing conditions report and Allison? well I guess I was actually not to put Ben on the spot but I was going to ask Ben having not been part of the committee as long as others what do you think do you think it will be helpful to have an explanation or do you think it's overkill I'm just trying to figure out I want someone's opinion that hasn't been part of this thinking I was thinking from that absolutely you'd answer some questions before they needed to be asked in the first place I think the more clarity the better nothing else it shows a high level of scrutiny you want scrutiny we'll give you scrutiny but as you were saying though that is a little bit of a rule then you're going to go through for any of these attachments and add some sort of introduction that provides whatever qualification what's in it that was used yeah I think that would be helpful because it does show the level of scrutiny that we've all gone through this thing it explains it but if somebody else sees some discrepancies spots the same discrepancies covered so I think that would help yeah I agree and I also think frankly if you're going to make this thing more readable and usable you wouldn't just do it for the section we bothered picking out and talking about you'd do it for all of them because what may not seem confusing to us another reader's going to come along and say I really appreciate the introduction of the other offended section what do I do? so maybe along the same lines on the same page when we're talking about the roadways and parking lots again this is a factor of what came first chicken and egg just to talk about well you know whatever you do going forward take a look at this and for environmental and fiscal reasons try to limit your paving I think that would help I like that because between the granite and the pavement it's almost $800,000 dollars so if we can minimize things it's a huge part of the construction goes to the percentage wise it goes on paving we have that money we try to use it for other things I have a question on that page and I see some numbers in red on the landscaping part which page is this? page 51 at the bottom so these are because you changed since the site scope changed this movement those red boundaries in the site scope so they're just revisions that were made through the process so we can turn them all black if you prefer but it would be more consistent I wanted to clarify that this was changes with respect to previous versions again, some explanation of the introductory narrative to this section would go a long way to explain that why are there red fonts? I don't know if we need to explain that if you want to keep it in at the bottom of this page text in red is site scope reduction as a course it's a question if you want to I mean it's cool we did a lot of work but why does the end reader actually care so much as I'm not trying to be funny or argument I'm wondering whether actually if somebody wants to really understand the document a footnote that says these lines were modified during the project I'm not sure that adds to my understanding of the final I think maybe to make a respect to the difference because the bottom line and the bottom line is prepared by Fogarty and Associates and this wasn't prepared by Fogarty and Associates I think this was a modification that you guys did in your office when you reviewed them with Fogarty so the question is who has an association because that would be the difference between I'd rather not pull out those kinds of differences frankly I'd rather have it all be where I ended up I don't know why we're doing that what benefit is okay so I should have made it last to the beginning but this is a drag there we go otherwise we could issue a marked redacted we got like a marked version with the edit shown and the side that could show all the changes we could do that earlier so 52 is the page where we've got the wetland relocation stuff so that that is one of the places where you can say in your little introduction these numbers could theoretically go away with different choices in some options not in A you can avoid it A is parking lot no well A is the parking the driveway the bus loop is the wetland on the south side is the driveway we can make that statement that any of the wetland relocation could go away if their design is different and then we're already modifying B to eliminate it from that option we can avoid the A the loop I think at the end you have your designs you did six of them or whatever they caused wetland relocation I mean you could always have different designs if that was your priority and at some point in recent weeks someone made the comment that the wetlands we have by and large at least in the areas adjacent to the building they are not high quality wetlands we're yes you want to avoid them where you can you don't want to be frivolous but they have been mowed for decades they've already been compromised so maybe some kind of statement like that would be helpful because people are going to see wetlands and think you're mowing down turtles that I very much agree with without any qualification people's decision of what wetland is is very different than what we're talking about here next for page 56 so this is the the survey and do your drawings are it's much better to kind of understand where the wetlands are so if somebody wanted to look at the site survey and just look at the whole parcel and say alright what's here that I have to worry about there's really not a a summary map that puts the important stuff like wetlands and setbacks and wildlife areas so or did I am I not seeing it I mean I have the final survey in the draft I may not have had the final survey when I put this in here so if you have a new summary map are you talking about the survey? and the only one I've got it basically is just it just says where the 10 different sheets are but I think you had a revised survey which then you sent me at the last one I didn't have that one that was a flood map I think it was a flood map no no no oh you did so does that have the whole parcel on one piece of paper and I don't think so basically a composite like summary map yeah we already talked about it I'm just saying we talked about that previous meeting that would be helpful to have one map that sort of shows all that yeah I think you'd go to your survey here and ask for that I thought you did that and then send it to me but you're saying the one I sent you the revised survey that all that was was asking for some better the revision was based on the feedback that we got in the meeting which was about making some lines more clear and adding some legends so in a funny way I sent that map first before what I should also point out I don't disagree with the idea of that kind of summary map going forward for the use of the documents that came out of our committee these are helpful documents so I was going to pick this up I was going to want these larger detail scale stuff but I think for someone reading it you want something you don't have to flip through before you get into the fragments and it's probably not something that the survey folks are going to go back and do for us but maybe we can do like a graphic I mean you've done graphics that your designs A through F but maybe just do the same thing with as is and mark the wetlands and mark the NEH, what is it, NEH ESP? Is that sorry, when are you done? Is that the appropriate course of action? Should we go back to Berkshire and ask them? They'll want a change order Can we communicate directly with Berkshire? Thanks for all the details can you compile it into one map so we can make it legible in the report It's a fair change order ask if they want to but at the same time I think we're going to have a little bit of assuming it's a fair change order I think it's something that might be worth the money Did they give us a different version of that? We have a CAD file So what we'll do is we'll call Berkshire and say we would like your permission to take your CAD file and create one graphic and turn off the layers that are relevant for that compiled map and just focus on the major things and then we'll put a note on it and say map compiled by TSKP I have a question You have the CAD file Do we have the CAD file? I think that was in there I should go to planning I hope you're astounded that they didn't have it because that was part of the submission We've got the PDF I want to make sure that we went to the channels I'm pretty sure that was in there We have an existing site plan which is of similar graphic quality to the other site plans We can include the information about wetlands that we learned from the survey on that site plan That's not the existence It's that kind of graphic quality that I think you're going to get if you're trying to get all that information on one page It's not the entire parcel which is then hard to read But it's the focus area So if you're thinking about something like that Next Page 68 just to have a brief summary of ATC's report in the executive summary for the introductory section Did Jim generate something like that? If Jim did that would also be good to include I'll say if he did I know he gave us a verbal summary I'm trying to remember if he sent something to that I don't remember if there was an actual written version and that would be good to include I will look and see if it exists It would be great if it exists Next Could you put in section 8.10 where we have the MSBH Total Project Worksheets again the same stuff about and especially here to put this was for enrollment of 465 students to be clear and then CM method I wrote here 2022 but that's wrong sorry it's page 222 that's the head or she before you have all those MSBH Total Project budgets I would add a comment to that I think the 465 has to be right that's 420 K through 6 plus 45 per K because that implies more administration space so if you were doing 465 students that are K through 6 would be a different That introduction page that Richard described would capture this quite well because they're all the same those criteria the question I have is you put this this is the first time I saw this nest deck enrollment projections I was very curious which page is for the leg in this is the start 8 section 8.9 section 192 193 this is the newest one this is what was given to us in one of those initial workshop meetings it wasn't in 2018 it was back in September or October so if there's a more recent one and you want to include that instead we can do that we can pull it we don't refer to these anywhere in the report so I'm not sure that they need to be here but I think as a complete document I think I was very curious also this is the first time I see this there definitely is a more recent one because we used it the facilities use advisory board looking at the middle school and high school so I think there's like March yeah March does it undermine our report I don't think it does well yeah it's our report doesn't deal district wide with the changing enrollments and I think that's really what nest deck is reporting on that discussed a little bit about that at one point and we said but that's really not our a lot of way our church was really about a population based on today's enrollment yeah it's actually a larger enrollment than the current enrollment but it was district wide we really just created a plausible model for enrollment that's right there was very early discussions about the population what you envision for the population I remember those discussions with Dr. Morris so weirdly enough I mean I'm not against including this but weirdly enough including this or a new version of it but actually mislead people to say that we actually used this document in some way to I would then argue that that we shouldn't include it at all okay I would agree with that that's exactly what we should be doing and if anyone wants to go look they're going to find out it's not like the numbers are crazy I like them they're so good district that's it is a distraction next I got nothing else to say but there was one there was a section there's something I don't know if we talked about I can't remember where do we talk about the we say where they're shooting for weeds what section is that we talked about in MSBA incentives yeah so I did have a comment about that because where do you have the lead the analysis that we for our project that you say oh the scorecard thank you I could they are in here and I can't think what section I think they're in the pricing there I'm going to find her just to explore well I guess I mean it's not really my comment doesn't you don't really have to look at the page to make sense so we say what work that we're targeting lead silver and yet all of our score sheets are gold and I would wonder so one why would we target silver instead of gold and two if we're hitting gold why don't we just say that the rationale I believe what's on the scorecard is you target more points than you actually need it to outside so it may push us up into gold we might have to even cross that threshold but the expectation is some of these points will drop out through the design process and even through construction so I think they're they're targeting silver but the number of points exceeds the threshold for gold currently and we could explain that I think so I think that would make sense because I mean I was going to say well so on day one you would start out with a lead gold score sheet because you're assuming that you get all those points you're hoping you're being optimistic so we need to explain that that sounds good yeah I mean that's kind of stuff that actually I like because it's genuinely educational somebody reading through this is actually going to learn something about how the new school building actually informs this but it also informs the wider context of how you go about planning it's just good planning knowing that someone's going to drop out when I ask by a a condo developer not that I do condo work anymore how many units can we fit on this parcel I always give them a low number and hopefully we can improve as we develop other comments, questions on any section I have a quick question but that's on the MSBA reimbursements which section, sorry 8.10 I think I think it's in here probably because I was not here that meeting about the points of what is being reversed and what is not being reversed by MSBA so a big portion I think if we wanted all the side to be reversed by MSBA we have to cut cost by half and I think that's not feasible because of the gaps and also the other question was about that's typical that was my question I was not here for that discussion so that is that typical that the side cost we have to cut it by half and there's no way by looking at the numbers we are actually working on an urban project now where pretty much all the side costs is eligible but the way MSBA is figuring that out is they're taking a percentage of the direct building cost so you can see on the spreadsheets on page 2 on the right side there's the site cost reimbursement break up and so the direct building cost is added up there and I believe it's 8% which is considered eligible right up on top yeah 8% so essentially this is skewed towards urban projects and not like in urban projects you don't have as much parking as you have here and you don't have as much side this camp does end up benefiting urban projects but I think that 8% just is another problem here by some people who wanted a control cost the concern is that educational goals I think are really met in the building I think this is the thinking of the fields and building the road to your school is yours to manage they want to limit how far they go outside of the building and the same goes with the furnishing it's not that the cap was about half of what has been quoted so is that because again they put a cap so that you don't go overspending MSBA is lagged behind okay I mean there was a time there were no MSBA projects it was all on hold and then when they started up again actually their cap was pretty close to cost at that time but since then they've been adding a certain percentage per year but that percentage does not meet the actual rate of completion of the construction cost so construction cost has been doing this okay so the cap is small okay what's next if we are truly done we can we can since I have identical items from last time could touch upon the same items I personally don't have anything to do with John a little bit I don't have anything personal to present but I don't know if you have a comment or a date maybe I was going to talk to Mike I did not my recollection I mean I'm happy to I'm sorry are you talking about the town council or the school committee we're talking about both I'm talking about the town council and I think there was confusion over who was following I bet if I turn back to this page it will say Jay has to do that I think you have to talk to the president so that's Lynn Griesman true someone I thought Paul also kind of managed things but oh they kind of work together and honestly town council is a lot of their play right now and I was kind of figuring it might be easier because it's at least it has office hours get it on let it be available so I'm going to pass the question go ahead so we've given you a lot of feedback what's next for you guys well we need to obviously incorporate that feedback as well as our own pass through that's right and then bring that back to you as a final product we're not going to be around next week have a vacation next week so we're going to need two maybe three weeks to turn this around we don't need to decide now but I'm going to propose that when the final draft comes back or the next draft whatever we call it comes back that maybe we divide up the reading duties because I had difficulty getting through it I didn't get through it in one week so I didn't get through it so honestly I ignored the appendices I didn't have the time so maybe it would next time we discuss this maybe consider that I'm comfortable with that approach or the executive summary says it all and if the introductory narratives kind of maybe that's what we focus on I mean and obviously you wouldn't be prohibited from reading all right alright if you want to go I think everybody should read certain sections and they would have at least two readers per assignment and I think maybe mix it up so that not to be born with all the same way so I think at least you have at least two readers but I think we also need I think what I'm hearing from Richard is that we should also focus our reading you know that there are it will be impossible to get every I and T crossed as it were in certain dense parts of the appendices probably but if we can do a conscientious effort to make sure that the kind of explanation of the document as a whole represents a part consensus I think we'll go in a long way I think if let's say a reader is sitting out listening for the first time what's he going to read? he's going to read the highlights that we'll kind of explain it to him and if that message is clear I think in the dense portions of the details how does he deliver get there I also think you have a good sense of what we had comments on so I'm not anticipating a heavy second probably no you can't do that so I'll get that section 17 within a week so that you've got that so you said the executive summary and the introductory narratives to each section but also just to reiterate again for the hard purposes it's probably around three weeks before we see that I'm going to ask a follow-up question to the committee I suspect that we don't have too many other pressing items do we wait to hear does our group want to wait to hear from TSKP before scheduling our next meeting we'll have the independent cost estimate quotes next week that could be left to our task force if the committee is comfortable with that it's not a bad idea are folks comfortable with the task force or we could plan on like a 40 minute meeting it's up to I'll find another way you know that process of reconciliation I talked about I guess I'll answer your question this way I'd rather have a little work group do it at least for the sake that if what you come up with is there needs to be some greater reconciliation I don't want to meet just to talk we're going to have to do that another talk after that's happened the quotes you're getting are just estimators saying how much their fees are at this point I'm sorry you meant the bid I'm being stupid I'm being crazy I thought you were talking about the actual product taking some of that we'll be taking the lowest qualified bidder and I only solicited four qualified firms that's why I thought maybe you could be left in the group because it's really a rather functionary thing I agree because it doesn't sound like it's worthwhile for us to get together and I would also suggest that we schedule a meeting for four weeks from now just so that we can get something that we can make it and if you think that that's a realistic deadline for you to get it three weeks from now so we have it that's a good call I have a question do we know the cost the independent cost estimator how long they might take three weeks to weeks I don't think we can say for sure I think we have expected over a month though right I mean those things will not they certainly won't be able to do their process and do any sort of reconciliation before we next meet okay sorry May 8th sounds good May 8th unfortunately it doesn't work for me but for me no I'm just throwing it out there because I figured Alison was saying we could actually make a decision right now I thought that I was all in favor of doing yeah I don't know if that week if anybody was if you could do a different day or I mean that's another early release day I could do earlier in the day and Rudy for the month of May on Thursdays I'm going to be in Boston so Thursdays are not good for me either I suspect we should just end around the usual kind of and we've got time I feel like we've got time to figure out the scheduling of it but we'll shoot for some time that first week so the week of first full week and I'd say as a backup for 5.30 if need be 5.30 the week of the week of 5.30 the week of 5.30 I'm still stuck on Wednesdays I'm sorry I think as a backup the week of 5.30 so Thursdays are no good right well for two of us in general is there a school committee on that Tuesdays are bad in that regard but it depends on the Tuesday okay although that's exactly that's going to be my failure to put it in my calendar I'll probably do one of those multi-day ones thank you I should probably know the answer to this question but does the school committee meet also? not that I want not that I'm imagining this drags out that long but there isn't like a hiatus I think I'm excited to tell you the answer just to ensure that it puts some affirmative pressure on us which we scheduled earlier based on that since we are meeting on May 8 should we ask already for a date early June? well that's kind of the question there was a slip also just to be clear again there was a slip task between me and Jonathan but who was going to coordinate with Mike Morrison and Estesia Rodriguez to get it on the calendar we're actually going to get it on the calendar as soon as we can like slotted in for a particular meeting as soon as we can I think we should target around beginning of June because Estesia doesn't finish this early I think this is on the 14th well that will call Mike or email him for both tomorrow but now we have a sense that we're probably looking at a final draft in about four weeks that gives me more context to my conversation we've talked about independent cost estimator so I have two responses and one response that they wouldn't be doing it so we'll see if the fourth one responds with the deadline is Wednesday I don't think we have any invoices there are no invoices in the interest of full disclosure Berkshire designed and sending invoice number three for asking for a few more hundred dollars no real explanation I conveyed my dismay at seeing that invoice and I was told to ignore it but that did happen good job yeah that's what a public servant looks like that's right there was no change order so right no new invoices we won't expect any until your final invoice and then the independent cost estimator we're wrapping up speaking of wrapping up I think we can wrap up second, Paul and Vader alright thank you