 Good morning. This is the Fort River School Building Committee today. It is December 20th, 2018. This committee here, committee meeting, is being reported by Amherst Media. Did I miss anything? Am I usualist? That sounds right. And I guess I'd say before I get into my future agenda, welcome to court to new members who were sworn in practically minutes ago. We're probably a day ago. So, Ben Harrington and Henry Berks. We have no idea how long we've waited for new efforts. All he has to know is exactly the same. Exactly the same. It is probably close to the end. Yeah, you're right. Yeah, we haven't had a new... That's true. Oh, well. So, I'm going to move on to meeting minutes. I did not bring extra copies. I will apologize for that. I did probably have like a copy of each one to take extra notes on, but we have two sets of minutes to record both the 7th and the 20th of November. And so, I guess I'll start with the older one, the 7th. I realize people are going way back in their memory back since this point, but are there corrections to this? Or could we not be able to obtain a motion? Of course, I guess, are there corrections? Hearing none. Can I have a motion? Move to approve the minutes of November 7th. All in favor? I'll abstain. Thank you. Moving on to the 20th, a slightly more recent in time. Sorry. We did discuss just taking minutes today. Yes. Recording votes, it's going to be easier to do that now. Yes, I would agree. Can I ask for a volunteer? I'd love to volunteer myself, but I already have one set that I have behind that. Okay. Now, moving on to the meeting minutes from the 20th. Do folks have corrections to the meeting minutes from the 20th? Move to approve the minutes. Second? Power comments. Is there a next agenda item? Nope. So then we'll move on to reviewing project progress and crossing updates with the STP. Okay. Thank you. It's nice to be here again, so quickly. I'll preface our presentation saying we definitely made progress in response to your comments last week. There was a good healthy discussion last week, so we haven't gotten everything done at this point. So just be aware of that. I'd also like to introduce Rachel Laughler from Durship Design Group. She's been working on the site and civil aspect of the project. So one agenda for our topic today is to look at those costs of site in a little more detail, so we have her here to guide us to the scope. I should add also on the hammer's president, so I can't very much about how this affects us. Very good. That's enough. We'll move to the presentation. I'm going to open it up for discussion. And then our presentation goals. We have some updates to the estimate, which we want to orient to begin with. Then the sites go looking at the detailed estimate. And then we're generally reviewing assumptions. I suppose that's also looking forward. So this should look familiar. This is a blow up of option A in the estimate. And I put a red box around one of the major updates that we realized after last meeting is that there was an error in the estimate regarding the PV panel quantity. And so now we have corrected that quantity. Previously it had 87 kilowatts for option A, which didn't match up with our narrative in something we had missed. So the cost for the PV panels is quite a bit more than we presented last week. Now this is assuming you've purchased the panels as part of the project as opposed to a lease agreement, which would produce this to zero in terms of project cost. Go ahead then. And is that aligned with what was shown in the drawings for quantity? This quantity matches the drawings in the narrative. It was the estimator who had grabbed the wrong quantity and brought it right through. He'd scaled it down appropriately between each option. So then also to see this a little bit. But then we finally caught up to it. So this will affect that net zero premium slide, which I've also included in the presentation. But the first thing it does is, you can see it's adding to the direct cost by 3.9 million and then increasing the construction cost. We should bring the burdens in. It's about four and a half million more. Can I ask you a question? This is just for the actual panel, not the part, because part of the deterrents include installation like cannabis and all this. That's taking the counting this cost, or this is just the panel per se? This is all. It's got the canopies as well. I mean, at this time. Full installation cost. Yeah. So this includes installation. It does. It includes installation. It includes the roof, the ground, and the canopies. So when they scale it down, they scale it down because the cost of installation of the different places is very different. So it's different from starting in the field than in the roof. I think they're using a different rate when it gets to option E. It's a smaller quantity. A smaller quantity is typically at a higher rate. But it's being looked at at a certain level of detail looking at the overall quantity and what rates at that size typically go for. So I understand if we wanted to, say, save some money by getting rid of parking canopies and go ground-mounted. I don't know if the estimate has that much detail in it at this point. OK. So that is something that has been further developed for the development of that kind of detail. Can I just get clarity that the 1,132 kilowatt, that's the rate of control capacity where it's happening without power to redistribute? I believe so. Our narrative, and I could pull up the narrative and read how it was in the context there. That may help. But the estimator's grabbed the number from the narrative. I believe that's the answer, yeah. So now we've updated the construction cost for all of our options relative to that increased cost of PV. And so you see option A goes up the most because it has the most PV. Option E and F, which are for a small raise, were less effective. The other provision we made in this go-around is we heard your comment about what should the soft cost be for this project and is it 130% increase, really a little more than MSBA averages? And when you look through the benchmarking that someone shared, Maria shared, it's true it's on the higher end. And I think we were being conservative. You definitely find projects that are at 130 even higher, but they're usually smaller projects in general. So being a larger project, we feel very comfortable using 125%. So that was a helpful comment. So we've made that change as well. And that brings everything down by 5%. So it almost offsets the PV increase with regard to option A. And then for options D and E, which have less of a PV increase, they've actually become less expensive than we looked at last time. The cost is less. Those are the two major updates in terms of cost. And so here's all of the project costs now are updated to reflect those two revisions. If you do that, we can come back if you want to talk about the specific options. And so the PDT panel cost also affects our net-zero premium slide. And so we've updated it as well to point out that, and we've gone into a little bit more about these two paths that we presented last time, the concept between the two paths holds up even though the PDT panel costs are higher in that if you go and use a lot of PDs and don't push your building efficiency so far, it's actually probably a cheaper route to get to net-zero. That's the top one. Go ahead. I have a question. Here's a PV panel cost 6 million before we're talking 3 million. That's because of the compounded interest of all the sub-costs. Correct. This is a project cost. But still, I think my calculation last time was a 50% increase based on the construction cost. Well, to get to construction costs and then you have to go to project costs. Yeah, but that's why. So if you go from this PV panel, then if you add up all these numbers, plus the 95% with the 70% was 58% increased from the construction cost. Because that number is almost... Yeah, this is consistent. I'm not quite sure about your numbers right now. We should do a check now that we've made a couple revisions about the burden. But I believe this is accurate. And it is doing exactly what you said. We just increased it according to the burden to get to construction costs and then multiplied by 1.25 to get to project costs. Yeah, but because all the other costs is 20, 23% less, or 30% to the 37% converted by the 25% and it says 60%. Right. 60% increased and 60% increased from 3.3 million. No, but then you have to do the capital of 1.25 as well. No, no, that's what I'm doing. Oh, you can't... I can help you with that. We can do that together if you like. I just don't want to stop today. Okay. We'll take my... Can you trust me on that for a little bit when we come back to it? Maybe it's correct, but I think it's correct. That's a pretty good question. So were the panel assumptions at, say, 22% efficiency or 17% of what are we assuming for panel efficiency? And also, what are you using for the installed Y cost on a PD? Is it three bucks? Yeah, that's given in the estimate. It's three bucks. It was right there on option A. So it's 3,000 per kilowatt or $3 per watt. I'll have to check on the efficiency. When I ran it at 22% efficiency, I got a lower ballpark number than 1,000. 132 was getting lower than 1,000. So it would be interesting to see. So you ran it, you took a building, E.U.I. of a certain square footage? Yeah, I used 85,000 square feet at a 30 E.U.I. I got 2.5 million roughly KBTU per year energy usage. When I took that to kilowatt hours, 7,000 and 362. And I don't know what they assumed for the output per year when I ran it at 1,100. So I got a needed rated KW capacity of 679. I can tell you already, it's because you work with 30 E.U.I. So this number is still on the 50 E.U.I. But down below, I'm still getting... So let's talk about that. That's perfect. So we had based the numbers originally on the 50 E.U.I. scenario because we recognized it would be the least costly way to achieve the bylaw and get to that zero. Last time we met, there was definitely an interest of getting to E.U.I. 30 with the building. And so that would reduce the number of E.U.I. panels. The site plan shows this, let's see if I can point you, this black box around the ground that reflects how much that ground mounted array would be reduced, would be reduced down to that size. And you'd have fewer PVs, so the PV panel costs would also come down. You can see it's about 60% of the, I think it's exactly 60%, of the cost if we went with E.U.I. 50. So there's savings there in terms of having fewer PVs if you choose to buy them as part of the project. The cost increases due to measures that would be required to get our 50 building, which is relatively achievable. It's still a high performance building, but it wouldn't have to necessarily have the geothermal wells and some of the envelope increase items. So there was a question last time as to what those items are. So the next slide goes into that. But I don't want to go past your question. Did that answer it for now? Well, I guess what the efficiency assumption is going to affect it obviously. Because we need fewer panels, we might be able to get it all on the roof, I think, if we went to a higher efficiency panel. Okay. So it'd just be good to tease some of those assumptions apart. I know that's not an narrative now, although it was discussed with our team, but I can't recall the number to... And I will get it for you. I'm wondering if the cost we built in the canopy is going to be expensive. So I'm wondering if the extra cost of the canopy panels might more than compensate for getting rid of panels on a ground level. If we could fit... I got to do a ballpark of 33,000 square feet of high efficiency panels. For a serial UI. Yeah. And maybe you could fit that on the roof, I don't know. Yeah. Maybe. It's going to be a lot of work here. Well, so one of the other aspects with roof is, depending on which mechanical system you go with, they require more or less pressure. So as we mentioned, we went EUI 50. You can see we've blocked out pretty good size area of the roof for rooftop VAD units. So if we go to EUI 30, we're talking about mechanical systems that have smaller rooftop elements and we have more PV area. So this site plan is close. It's going to be a little better on the EUI 30 in terms of the amount of stuff on the ground. So let's talk about what would a EUI 50 build in terms of new construction. Let's start with the new construction. For new construction in the EUI 50 building, you have a cool kitchen which is fine. You have summer programs that we understand you do. And EUI 50 building, we could achieve that with full building year-round use. It's really not a problem. For glazing in a EUI 50 building, just have an insulated glass with a low e-coating. Get us there. Percentage of glazing can go up to 40%. We can get to EUI 50. It's a very achievable goal for a school. Part 25 of walls are through a roof. Basically, energy code. We're meeting energy code. Energy code has become more stringent over the years. But we don't have to go much further than meeting it. VAB with energy recovery, when we met with your facilities director, they asked us to make sure we included this system because it was the most maintainable, the most familiar to the staff. And so here it is. It's not the most efficient, but it works for a EUI 50 building. And we do it a lot in the schools still. And all LED lighting, which is basically industry standard, is very efficient and important to have that. So then you say, well, what would require to go further to get to the EUI 30? So again, we noted that you've got the full kitchen in this scenario as well. I don't think you have an option to get away from that. The kitchen uses energy. Jesse, while I kind of understand the impact of the kitchen, you might just want to elaborate slightly on why having a kitchen would actually impact that. Sure. Yeah. I mean, there's ventilation requirements for the hoods in the kitchen that are causing us to bring in a lot of air from outside. And this is generally why ventilation, not just having kitchens, but schools require a lot of ventilation air to be brought into the classroom. That's why it's more challenging. We can push the envelope on a school way up in terms of thermal performance, but we're still bringing in a lot of outside air and heating to temper and heat to cool that air to provide it to students to meet code requirements. So fair that in mind. I know there are some really low EUI projects in the area, and we want to push as far as we can in this for sure. But we're also trying to be somewhat conservative and set goals that we can make. So the alternative would be a satellite kitchen or a warming kitchen where food is prepared elsewhere and destroyed. Some districts just operate that way so they can sort of take this issue away. But that's not the way I understand it. I mean, it's just very context. We've had that model where someone kind of used to be. We have it now at Kalanau Entry School, which is not part of the Emmer's public schools, but it's not a deferrable model. It's not just the delivery of the logistics, but the experience of students eating food, so one of the things that the carers heard for the regional schools is the movement of someone who got into high school and immediately the food quality seems way better than the same food, but it's not that it's been on-site. So our experience has been on-site kitchen is much deferrable from the student experience. We knew that, and we think it doesn't get in the way of your goals of meeting the EUI 30, but we wanted to know if that was one of our assumptions. That's why I just wanted to offer a local context. Sure. I just wanted to clarify because I think what I'm getting is that if you have a full kitchen which is something that we want, it's going to be harder to get something lower than EUI 30. Is that what you're saying, or am I misinterpreting? Well, not having a full kitchen is easier, so yeah, I agree with you that you're saying the same thing. I think to put this slide into perspective, we're talking about typical components here. We've not got an energy model at this point that tells us the full kitchen pushes you over and you're going to be a 31 now as opposed to 29. We're not doing that kind of stuff, but just in general, I think you could get behind the idea that the full kitchen is going to make it a little harder if you took it away, it would be easier. Kind of general statement. With regard to operations of the building, we'd be looking for opportunities to tailor the building use so that we don't have to necessarily run the whole building all summer, let's say. Maybe the summer programs are known to be limited parts of the building and we're not planning on conditioning the building all through the summer. That's thinking about how the building's used and perhaps not designing for full use all year round. Another way to think about this under the EUI 30 is that there are choices that you have to make to get from 50 to 30 and this is a way to kind of test out which ones of these... We proposed a couple. Maybe your summer programs really don't take the whole building. I can't remember what you told us about our current summer programs built just about all of Crocker Farm including the preschool wing. So I think certainly from an operations perspective we could maintain having summer programs at Crocker Farm. It actually seems like maybe not the right phrasing, but the person senate to have students remain at a less efficient building so that the EUI at this building stays lower even from an energy perspective we'd rather close Crocker Farm which is less efficient and have it at this building. That's not mine to... So we can maintain that at Crocker Farm it's actually an advantage because the preschool is part of our summer programs having them maintained at the same spaces. So I would be pushing the summer use of this building it's more a community question from a programming standpoint sort of an aside about the energy usage of Crocker Farm we probably want to maintain that model anyway. Maria? Can I just go back a little bit? If you didn't use Crocker Farm though would it still need to use all of this building? Would it be full building use or would it still be part building use? So there's other not-for-proper product vendors that do use our buildings over the summer with multi-art scheme on the other one so that's the variable would be that we'd have to control their use that they tend to use a relative small part of the building as compared to our summer academic programs so I think as I'm reading the language it's not that you're shaking on the building that you're using and I don't think that would be a big ask from our perspective. I think the only variable I'll say is a building like this was to move forward that had a preschool wing would be really unfortunate not having summer programs in a location that's frankly more subject to the town but again I think the overall scheme of things that's not something I would feel is a huge issue. Really all we're trying to make sure as we look at this are we about right for the level of choices. It's a huge issue from the operations of the district. Bear in mind we're making a study so if we're comfortable with these kinds of things in our study to talk about what a UI 30 versus a UI 50 I actually think it's advantageous for the study to continue to talk about both right now. I have a quick question I understand not having programming during the summer months decreases your energy consumption footprint I also want to ask about the context of climate change and higher temperatures overall throughout the year how that fits in with this model should we do that anticipate those changes? I think the question is at what year? 50 years from now probably not 100 years from now who knows. But in a 30 year it's significant. I'm going to go through more of them. Another operational decision that we would consider is relaxing interior temperatures. That means in the summer maybe we're going to go to 77 or 78 degrees as our set points in the room and just keep humidity lower and in the winter we're not going to heat up to 72 or 68 and that would help lower energy use. That's obvious. One of the key words here is with lower humidity higher temperature if you can maintain the lower humidity it's still We want lower humidity in our chilled beam building anyway we don't have to do humidity control. As this goes with our mechanical system which is coming up it's either chilled beam or VRF they both have the ability to control humidity in a different way than the VAV does the VAV would kind of want you to set a lower set point to take the humidity out so we can keep the humidity low but let the set point rise up with this kind of system and you're right we also need to keep humidity lower with the chilled beam to make sure there's not compensation and we can talk about that part of that system as well if we want to but rather just keep getting through this it's coming up. Triple glazing we know what that is right that's three layers of glass makes our windows more efficient we could do that and help us get to UI 30 our walls and roof we can insulate them even more our 35 and our 60 should get us there we can put installation under the slab continuously as opposed to just the first four feet from the perimeter wall which is what we typically do in the UI 50 so that would help and then the mechanical system which is worth discussing operational considerations so either chilled beam or VRF both with geothermal which has a price tag to it but really goes a long way towards producing overall energy demand and then there's the operation of considerations of these systems the VRF as we presented a long time back if you remember has filters and units in each classroom that need to be changed out so often so that's kind of a downside there maintenance activities with classroom use the chilled beam is better in that way the maintenance is less the consideration is if the windows open and the chilled beams on humid air could come into the room and condense on a cool beam but that's something we control the use of monitors on the windows so that the system knows when the windows open or we don't provide operable windows that's the other way to go and so we can manage that we've done chilled beams in a number of schools it's been successful so there are benefits to that system and it's more efficient but it's also a little more complicated system and so your facilities director at the time when we looked at it said I'm not sure this is most appropriate for us we feel much more comfortable with the traditional VAV system so those are the kinds of hurdles I suppose once you're in a public school going to UI 30s if a community is behind it we can do all these things for sure it's just a matter of that discussion and then we mentioned we could do radiant flooring on the ground floor providing heat right at the demand level it's more efficient and in elementary school it's kind of a nice idea of kindergarten or pre-k or on the floor all the time I've never heard of this being done but is it possible to do radiant flooring on the second floor if you're doing concrete on the second floor we've done that as well we pick the ground floor because it's going to be more tied to energy just providing that would help that would be more efficient there's a cost to radiant floor so that may be another how much do you want to do you can reduce the ambient air you feel more comfortable with that public school since the last meeting asked me a bit about geothermal and I'm not going to be the expert to describe anything but one of the queries was at this point in the process have people really done enough in terms of understanding the ground and the feasibility and the real cost of doing geothermal at the site and I'm not expecting yes I have all the answers but if you could give me a way to respond to the answer we haven't done what's called a conductivity test to see what the I'll use that term so that's great thank you which is a measure of the transmission of BTUs from the earth to whatever fluid we use that test would have to be done in order to determine the number of wells and the depth of the wells we can guesstimate based upon prior experience but it might be 200 wells the quantity is in the narrative we have to look at just over 100 for the level of study that's probably the adequate level that's perfect that's what I was just going to say I mean there is another question that we need to address which we'll get to later will the geotechnical answer that question and if it doesn't is it something that we should consider looking at as part of our study the geotechnical is not for structural reasons and the test for conductivity is different you actually have to core into the earth quite depth and then insert a coil in the first loop in order to measure the temperature of the fluid going in and the temperature going out that's what determines the conductivity and geotechnical people don't know what would do that to geothermal well contractors part of the cost of that can you give us a ballpark about what something like that would cost if it's something that we need to at some point we need to circle back which is not a topic tonight we'll be on the topic this morning we can get a quote just so we think about what we would afford to be done which we may or may not okay well we made it to the first half I need to go faster for renovation I guess the overall I'm trying to make it a little faster it's mostly the same stuff pushed into the renovation category one thing we realized is when we had presented renovation last time we said wasn't it reflected a higher EUI of 65 but then as we talked about it as a team we realized that we could really get the renovation areas to EUI 50 with the costs that are in the estimate so the estimate reflects EUI 50 for both the new construction and renovation so it's very equal we could take them both up to 30 and so for renovations it's kind of the same operation of things the higher insulation the cost to bring a renovation up to 30 is going to be more we're going to have to do a lot more to the walls so that that premium to go to EUI 30 in the renovation area is going to be much higher relative to the renovation costs go ahead so on this list there would be a selection of the walls too for EUI 50 no actually we would replace the windows and we would do the roof so it would remain in my car yeah it's like 2 or 5 but no more formal measurements but that's you don't get much and it's because the cost to really insulate those walls would be substantial so it's going to make a renovation not consider it's not going to want to consider it's like R what do you say R2 I've done no analysis of that I said maybe 5 but actually a better number I guess if you're doing modeling you would have to make the energy code by doing modeling because isn't that like R10 minimum for walls yeah but in the renovation I think you're working on the renovation scope oh okay so to meet the code you look at the overall average we'll meet it that way what else is different here we mentioned EUI 50 we could use the existing boilers the other question that came up was fossil fuel or not fossil fuel it's really a separate question from EUI we did hit on a little bit in the slide just to continue just to keep you confused we can use the existing boilers which are gas boilers as we show and options E and D because we kept that boiler room they're very efficient so they can get to EUI 50 or we could go all electric and we may need a small geothermal heat pump there's a question about how our VAB system is is operating without gas and it would be a heat pump based rooftop unit so it could be all electric and that EUI 50 if you wanted to get rid of the existing boilers we were thinking renovation scope you're probably trying to keep as much that's good intact and reduce cost if you're going down the renovation road so we originally thought well you keep the boilers because they're in US and they're efficient but they are fossil fuel so that would be a decision so getting back to what's in the current cost estimates I read back through the pricing narrative and it said the current systems will be removed in total or whatever the phrase is so I'm back to do the cost estimates including gas boiler that's existing from the 2010 gas boilers or not I think they do for those options that reuse them so the ones that keep the boiler room in place so D&E I believe include keeping existing gas boilers but not the others that's my best answer on that let's see what's different targeting EUI 30 and renovation we're still going to go to Chilpe for the mechanical system I think otherwise it seems good about the slab is that not possible push on other things to get there not any one of those is required but those are the things we're looking at I just wanted to put up this mechanical system spreadsheet one more time it's the same one you've seen before to remind you of VAVs being the lowest initial cost but operational cost because they're not that efficient is the highest but maintenance is very good so that's kind of how public schools still end up there whereas Chilpe with the geothermal and ground source heat pump initial cost is probably the highest operational cost is going to be the best the cheapest to operate because they're so efficient and then maintenance we had is a three so it was in the middle in terms of maintenance effort and VRF was worse in terms of maintenance with the filters in the question so in all kind of decisions can affect all different aspects of your operations we sort of moved on I was actually in the hospital thank you for the previous slide detailing the UI targets and typical components because we kind of belabored it gave you a hard time last beginning about wanting to see this stuff and you did it and I just really appreciate it yeah look what I was looking for okay well thank you we may still think of more items to go in there as you crunch through this I just think it's very when we think of the end product deliverable the problem with the earlier slides that are at a higher level is it gives it's hard for the public or apparently just for me to be able to sort of lift the hood and say what are you really talking about and so giving this extra detail is just extremely helpful and I think will be helpful to the final deliverable I have a question regarding this slide for example sometimes it's hard to see or there's somebody they do so next in the temperature that's free in both cases that is free sure but for example the the representation going through from 70 to 60 how does it compare with those from double place to triple place right as you pursue a EUI 30 path you're going to look at cost-benefit for each of these items and see which ones are preferable to you because maybe there's a middle point there that's what it is right so you don't have to do a EUI 50 building or a 30 building you could do a 41 but maybe some little changes motion to your okay that's true so sometimes what changes in the temperature that's free I really think that EUI 50 is conservative actually I think in this community we're likely to do better than that but we are taking a conservative approach to the visibility study not just to compare cost when we're talking about there's a 1.5 million dollar difference between the 30 maybe there's an equilibrium but at some point that's what I'm saying which file do they think is true right a challenge on that though the difference between 30 and 50 is already sort of trying to do that by looking at what's the cost to get into 30, what's the cost to do 50 that's giving you essentially that information of what the delta would be and obviously that table showed different movable parts I mean logically if you were going to shoot for 40 for example because you thought it would save you money there would be some combination of those things that would have to be included to get lower right I mean it's in what's the specific I mean I think this is where I was complimenting you actually was that I recognized that getting too much more granular than this is requiring a depth of analysis in the study that probably isn't in the scope and the budget and the time span which is why I appreciated you offering more detail because I think that gives us that happy and where people can understand what we're looking at you'll probably have lots of really great questions that'll push the dialogue further but you know what I mean without literally saying let's get down to a menu, the instruction menu and composite what it looks like from 30 straight through 37 through 43 through 50 which I think is unrealistic put it in some context this is an exercise if we were going forward with a project you would be doing for almost the life of the project until you set this thing out to bid but then you'd actually have a whole other step which would be making sure the building as it was constructed performs the levels to its set and so this is like the very baby step simulation of what you'd be doing if you're doing the project agreed I agree that 50 is conservative and I think to be doing a zero energy school we should be in the 30 range or below but I think 30 seems like a good reasonable number to work off of for now and if you get into construction design you may find out you can go lower you may find it's too expensive it is a reasonable number we've done EUI's close to 30 without being that zero so it is achievable you have to pay a certain premium to get there but do you at least find it worthwhile I think the vote, a couple of votes are down-meeting indicated that this community is interested in pushing it in that direction so I think using 30 is what we're talking about yeah and I'm assuming we need to keep talking about the 50 just so we can answer the question to the community like what are we getting for all this extra money while we're getting the net zero building and this is the premium at the lab where you were talking at the last meeting about how could we compare these what's the examples and orders I don't know if it's easy to do carbon dioxide estimated output that might be an interesting way to compare the six options and so that people what we're buying in the sense in this community is reduction of our carbon and that might be the most interesting way to cross test the option so pretending a million dollars more you get this much more reduction for CO2 output when we decide this is where we can afford to go or something this is one thought it's interesting we could look at that if we can carbon dioxide just you're looking at your combustion in any of the renovation models where you leave some of your combustion sources you know what your energy output is going to be and theoretically in your total net zero model you have a net zero output so we could sort of judge it's not going to be between models within the net zero it would be a comparison between the different renovation versus new construction because we're burning gas but you can use it now if you go on the renovation to all if you're not burning gas it does not change I think what you're getting at just to kind of bring it down to the more basic are you talking about like what is the carbon footprint which I think a lot of people can understand and say oh I get it this is a much lower carbon footprint we can look at that so I don't want to necessarily cut this off because I think it's very valuable but at the same time it's before or after I want to make sure we get the sites built last item I wanted to share before you cite what's these cost benchmarks we put together this is to address a question from Maria at the very end it seems like our cost per square foot at construction cost is higher than MSPA benchmarks that I had here at MSPA published data which was helpful and we shared it with our estimator and our response was we really have to look close into what that construction cost per square foot includes for each project and so this is a detailed analysis we developed with our estimator picking on two of the projects on that spreadsheet the previous Wildwood project as he had estimated it and then the Maple Elementary School in East Hampton which is currently in design and to kind of see how all different factors are weighing into that number that gets posted on the MSPA spreadsheet which is at the bottom of the first box it says cost per square foot that's the construction cost per square foot for each of the three projects 601, 441 I guess if you round it up and 501 but then if you look up the spreadsheet you can see building costs which is kind of what we think about is what we can most obviously address in terms of you know how what's in a building and what's not ours is 294 121 was 275 and the Maple Elementary School was higher 326 which we're benchmarking somewhere in between those and we understand the Maple School is bigger so we typically have less of a cost per square foot but it's higher than where we are with our smaller school and we're a little bit higher than Wildwood the thing about the Wildwood is it's not escalated up it's still a 2016 estimate so then we realize we need to still make these apples to apples because they're not perfect the scope in each one is different so that's the that's the box at the bottom cost leveraging where we have the fact that Fort River is estimated with the PV which we just talked about the others don't have PV so we need to take that out we need to escalate Wildwood to 2020 as well as Maple Elementary School to 2020 to match up with Fort River so we've done that and then we've been built so this 5% cost is there and so a more fair comparison of these three in terms of construction cost would be 552 Fort River 493 for the previous project here and then 565 for Maple Elementary School and so then we're like oh I feel like we're right in we're benchmarking well so Professor do you know what are the numbers of the other two projects the UI are the 50, 30 no I don't know the UI because I think that's going to have some impact it would our UI and our numbers is 50 but the other two are very similar to 30 it's very different you already know what your estimations are on for these ones I think you cannot make just a comparison with these or no the UI because then you already know there has to be impact also sometimes with the bigger schools the square footage of certain things that you have to have clear has a different impact on the spread the programming is different and those have a new impact on the square footage how much special needs for how much memory sometimes it doesn't scale linearly with the number of students I agree with that I guess what was interesting to me here is that the Maple School starts at a higher cost for a square foot building right in 325 but when you look at the construction cost line it's actually much much lower and it's really that leveling exercise that needs to happen I think one of the differences is the site working the Maple School is over twice as big as ours but the site work is not like just what we have in ours right for both site work for ours is a much higher percentage because we have a smaller building we still have this big site so that's a good segue to look at site but also has math and building demo is actually a higher percentage than some of the other projects so and then the burdening is higher because we're in feasibility study right now whereas they're in SD so they've refined their estimates down a little bit further so some of those costs have already moved up to building costs I was going to say that the sea of contingency the sea from the it's not because they're doing design for the building it's a different approach it's kind of related to everyone has questions so if I was surprised I should have noted page 3 but the pretty significant differences in square foot costs for A1, A2, and A3 ranging from 646 I know there are different models in the speed of preschool if not and I wonder if that was hitting at the same point that R&A was that's the side cost the side cost is the same for all of them I think it comes from the calculation from 50 to 80 or 90 it's a considerate portion of your overall cost depending on the footprint of the number of students on the square footage but the side cost remains the same because of the archipelago we're not quite sure I'm following all of that and I don't want to believe I know there's other things we can do in the meeting I'll let Maria make a comment and then what I would like to say is that maybe we can move on to the side because I think the benchmarking is something we can talk about for some time over multiple years I think what I'm going to say if you look at through those the side cost is exactly the same in all of the larger percentage of the cost per square foot thanks for doing this I'm also doing some other things and we talked about you know contingencies being larger the earlier you are in the project and if you look through if you wait through the MSBA numbers there's a line of markups basically so it's a little bit different between the direct cost and the construction cost and I've done it for about a dozen of them so that markup is anywhere from let's say 12% to 23% or 24% was the high in the projects that have already been have gone through to a schematic design phase with our project that's 30% so it's a lot higher and that's not even the what's it called the soft cost that's not even that on top of it so and you can break out and you can look at what are the relative percentages people are spending on HVAC on the interior on the site and so I'm happy to play with this spreadsheet and do that and that might help to kind of say are we higher than other schools or lower than other schools in what we're investing in with this design so let us and first I'm going to also I hope we can say a little past 30 so we can have a reasonable discussion about the site before you go on to Berkshire discussion about the site excuse myself I apologize it's bad enough for me to show up late but you are in very good hands Justin's really all over this you're going to leave you with him thanks for coming and whoever heard of gridlock in that person finals are over and you massed today that's what happened Richard is that your bag? that's my bag what's it? your bag your bag you're not getting far with that sorry site improvement first section is parking lots as well as pedestrian paving sidewalks and then there's a section for site development which we should go through for sure that's a question of the fields and some of the equipment on the site then comes landscaping which I think needs some and then the second page is the utilities and I think we're going to have a harder time touching utilities because we're going to need them for our new systems but we can look at that as well and the third page is electrical site lighting which I assume we'll need as well but I guess it sort of depends on some of the renovation options D&E the parking as they are and so how far do you go with that do you say oh well the lighting is okay for the parking as it is right now we just need to repave it and so then that doesn't even come it's probably best to start with Option A which is the most extensive reworking of the site as required to build a new building and look at where we can if anywhere define the scope go ahead Eric but I think Option A is the one that needs the most work because you're building another site and you're whipping up these things so I'm more concerned about if you haven't been able to time these through because those ones are the ones that are in the best design but I don't know how people feel about that unless I've written this wrong Neil I'm going to look at this right in the bottom Page 16 totals of the site improvements for landscaping site development pedestrian painting and parking is that a sub-total of the page? that's a sub-total I'm not seeing huge differences they aren't right now between any of the options in terms of the cost at this level even in a couple hundred thousand dollars which I'm thinking about the scale it doesn't look like it's the most and B that was my point is right now the estimate doesn't reuse too much in the site in a renovation approach so if you said oh we could sure we don't have to and I think this kind of we've talked in our Option E building plans while we're reusing this or we're building this new and we sort of address daylight as best we could but inside we just sort of did the whole thing new right now I'm not sure that's the way you want to do that two questions to answer one is what can we save in any of these options the second question is what is actually on that site should be tied to a school renovation because the site is so big that the school itself does not make use of all of those fields they're a community asset but they're not a school asset and should the school project be burned with maintaining or building a soccer field that doesn't get used by the school it would be great to have Diane here but I don't know how much you can talk to how much you know when I every time I'm there at recess the kids aren't more than further than the play structures they're not playing on the playing fields that the junior high ultimate frisbee team is using after school but again the junior high is using it so then is it should we be looking at it as a school investment so to me the bigger question is like how much of that site is actually the responsibility of this project and I think that is the critical question it's actually really the critical question other than what can you reuse what can you save reasonably the only other question to me that's really really critical is this question around programming is how do you allocate the improvements and what should reasonably include as a cost of an elementary school project versus a different line item of the capital budget and I'm saying it that way specifically because and I don't think you're saying this either no one is saying that you couldn't redo an adult recreational softball field or even that that shouldn't happen the real question is where do you put it in terms of the capital budget is it part of the school project or if the town wanted to do it would you put it in a different item of the town's budget and take it off of this line item so I don't know Mike has an answer to any thoughts out there yeah I think I think what's hard for me to assess other than option A which we have that nice visual on the screen is that just visually I'm presupposing where things will be on the renovation options which is hard for me to then imagine what field spaces would be there what field spaces we need so maybe we'll get there I don't want to but I do think that's the thing see that then answer that question does that make sense and I'm not sure quite who would be the right person to give the context but it would be good to understand what would we get supporting funding for because I guess that's the question I can answer something there MSBA will support up to 8% of your construction cost as site work so if we're at 24% right now we're funding already on our own a bunch of the site work so that becomes a tough consideration and push it into our project if they can get saved much but I think with utilities and the paving we're going to use up to 8% so my guess is that we this question really impacts all the options A through BN because looking at that slide I'm suspecting that there's a lot there that would get pushed the other way towards the town attention but I think I think going back to my comment before I think option A I think it's an issue for the town that we're taking over the fields that currently play but the other was the footprint in principle it's not going into the fields so I don't think that part should be or they're going into the fields in different I think it's when the other footprints goes into the play structure and on the parking lot so the site but not beyond it the soccer fields so I think can we go through each one and look if we could start with option A one thing I'll point out that's not included in the estimate in the site development is the restroom building for the fields because we see that at the town so that's already taken out but in the estimate right now the fields are all in right now and I believe the development area is large it's running all but it's basically everything you see here it's about 100,000 square feet so I think the consensus to be taken a conservative approach and looked at with a possible footprint of improvement including all the golf builds and all the options in the same way so that's something that could be refined to me personally that feels a little too big because my gut says that's not actually what we would be able to do as a town or to do as part of a school project yeah so this field is existing and the garden is existing so I don't know if the project would require work to those unless that was directed by I mean we can just set a general benchmark of what our elementary schools and childhood you know and under all these planes similar size so in general our schools have one soccer field our schools have a younger kid play area you know 8 and 2 we can do something like that an upper kid play area they have a hard top area mostly for winker and basketball sports like that and they have a little bit of open space which doesn't mean I want to acknowledge that open space is important to people but it's not like it needs to be a regulation size field but there's some students who play games that just the space is important and soccer goals aren't helpful and that's generally but having two kind of regulations that soccer field is not in the norm for our elementary schools that have been an elementary school for the teacher and principal I think that's been an overkill in terms of the needs of our recesses we stagger them intentionally not just in the field but it's not good but other kids are outside we can just from a safety perspective do it we wouldn't organize ourselves that way anyway so when I look at this the softball field is never used or almost never used for high school staff it's just not a game that kids choose to play recess number of kids it's just not something we do even for P.E. class it's not a typical use and it certainly would need to be like a regulation size softball field that we're doing it this education wouldn't need to be of that structure so I do think there's more in this design than what we would typically have in an elementary school at least based on the community's we have and also about how we stagger recess blocks so that we don't have like a third of the school out or a half of the school out at once so if I'm hearing you right, the project has taken on too much maybe of the communities in the field and we should hold that out that's my perspective can I ask a question? I think we need to be kind of realistic about this also point out that any time that we are in the learning ability so that is something that you guys decide in the interest of the community that MSBA does fully help pay the cost of that that is not considered the same cost so that is something that that is what you feel like is the best thing to do for the building to demo it eventually or in the next five to ten years that is something that is really helpful to have MSBA help pay for that in this case option A the building footprint is demo or other outdoor amenities are placed there so that kind of can help offset I think that gives us something I can work with is there a consensus that Superintendent Morris description of what we really need for this school should be the scope of this that one soccer field in this play area one hard top area in the space two kids two kids could we let the sense let's check that out yes but I would say that we don't always need to have it new sometimes we can reuse what we have so I think that is the difference between the scope of all the projects that in A we are going to have to have new size things to play areas but I think in the other ones we don't so I think we have that it is for the community to consider what's existing and if it needs to be modified and I think and I'm not the person who can do this but I think as the project move along we want to assess the current state of those playgrounds and ball fields and whether there's any work that we would want to include in a project for new school I'm not going to wager because I'm not in favor of a playground often enough to give a strong opinion but I just that's the only caution if some of our playgrounds are breaking down or is suddenly out of date or not up to code things like that we just move on and probably assess that along the way not at this point but just my only caution and actually do you have a question for option A sorry now you just got option B up so where the older kids play area is under option A I guess it's just it wouldn't be affected by the construction would be affected by where the new fields are because it's all the way to the I'm not going to use directional north west north yeah so so it's a little remote if you went to the left with your mouse it's sort of over there because that's the outline of the current building yeah exactly just a question is is that too close to where the demo would be like I don't know all that but it's not literally where the building is going so in terms of reusing current playground equipment it's just a question yeah I did go ahead and say you would just assume oh I have a question for two thousand square foot of faith that's a typical that's a basketball size place basketball you got more and much more because it gives me 65 so that's like two basketball courts you have a pretty substantial big play area around the channel I think we kept it kind of in line with what you have all of our other schools have two basketball courts and sometimes one of them have lower oops because again we have younger children playing and one have more regulation 10 foot hoops which is better for all the kids in the community so that's pretty typical for Wildwood 2 and at Markham Farm they also I think I take it this probably doesn't factor the geothermal well location because I know some schools like Discovery demo I'm thinking with the wells under their new soccer field so if you're ripping out a whole bunch of this you're rebuilding those soccer fields on top of your wells so I think assuming all new for those elements for a might be a safe assumption that way we can use those areas for a geothermal that's right just just formally comment on your last question I think I could sense this I didn't hear anyone objecting to that list of things that Mike did so I would say for you all that's kind of your direction is thinking without that scope the way Mike described it okay ready for me? it's just things eventually so to apply the same logic you can think the new soccer field which you need to develop this area anyways because you're demolishing the building here so put a soccer field in maybe that's your geothermal well field as well and then the two playgrounds the paved play and then all of the parking and any clearing that's required for ground mounted array and a question about this might be I know that the fields where the ground where you just pointed the ground mountain south into the right hand of the page are currently used for soccer practice so is that so I would argue that the schools almost never use that just because of the lack of proximity to the building it's really far away from the safety perspective the fields in the back are used much more frequently so I'm not trying to put all the costs of the town side but I do think in terms of what we need for a school it's not something that I would argue I think that one field in this model would be sufficient for our school usage not even to baseball I think those are existing those are existing so we could try the one in here that's our problem concerns no no I was just going to say the same thing that really the only change here the school cost would be drawing that line toward the back and omitting the work to the back and to the north of the field whatever that is the TV the topics topics makes me feel better understood I guess the other topic we could discuss is there are new paved areas required but even in option A we're sticking very closely to existing paving footprint but the existing paving is very deteriorating so I think we have to assume repaving ground repaving most of repaving is leaving from making new roads it would be less but those are supposed to be bigger because it's still significant cost and grinding down the pavement so since we're going through this one below and this is great in the bottom right can I just come up there this big blank space what's that can that be used for anything or is that the I don't know it's a whole and I'm not saying go every inch of the site could definitely be used could be an outdoor play space possibly as the interior laid out it seemed better to have the play where we put them the cafeteria but if you could think of a way to use that we could reconfigure the parking obviously and make it more vertical and encroach less to the south it was just kind of block diagrams but if you have an idea of what should go there I just realized we do it's this two to five it's an agent right now Crocker has three playgrounds one for preschool, one for K through two and then three through six somewhere in there and so we're showing we would have both K through two and three to six in this area now we could break it up into two areas but that square footage would culminate in two playgrounds so there's just two line items so in the estimate you probably didn't pick up on it so does that need to be three maybe but I think the cost of each would probably come down because he's looking at one big playground area and it's a level detail that we haven't shown but it accounts for the population it's a good point I'm going to make one suggestion to make sure we get through so just one thing, not for now just to know how many parking spots are accommodated by this model I don't want to go off on that but it actually matters in terms of site because where the addition is being this current parking so I'm just wondering where that's reflected because there's a side parking lot so it's around there we've tried to stay parking count neutral to have all the options I think you have 180 or 190 and I just couldn't see it that well and the second is just having been through one of these processes before where the playgrounds are because it's a really complicated thing I think all the suggestions are good I have more but I'm not sure that's the goal today because I think there's all sorts of moving pieces on that one that may not be the time you have a big flat site I would actually argue it's more important that we account for the cost for something than necessarily where it goes because I mean honestly I hate to say who cares but it's like you could put it a million different places and whenever we're actually building a project we're going to go through all those arguments I mean it's probably the same thing about that blank area there unless there's an actual functional use that we need to account for I think only as much as how it affects the cost exactly because if the parking is configured in a different way and the roadside is configured in a different way then maybe it's a lower cost substantial if there is I would say it's probably not too much because it's just grass so it would be grass over here or maybe a little less grass but the seeding costs wouldn't be very much there's not a grading component to it I think to your point I don't care very much about how those relationships happen for example you may want kids closer to the cafeteria so you have efficiency of movement in and out and I think we have space on the plan and flexibility on the plan to work those efficiencies in for you great thank you ready for a seed? let's go see I can get you to do it all right option C it seems like these two existing softball fields again and any space between them they'll be outside of our scope again now we have two soccer fields instead of one so you only set one soccer field to be acquired so we can also put that limit line right through here option C keeps the existing play areas where they are so the soccer fields in this one these are the ones that we have right now in place this is the parking area it's the same as the one that we have right now to not be actually not even close to some of these because right now they are there your question is a good one do we need to spend money on the existing soccer fields as part of the project since we are not within and we are not catching they are there yes in the day of work let's do all of them but if we are looking at costs if we are not within and we are not do we have to do it I would argue in this case no because the level of the level of soccer field needed at the elementary school versus what you'd want it for for adult play or something it probably doesn't require any upgrading my only question on that I don't disagree those athletes have two questions one is I don't like where they are just from a safety perspective I just said let's not focus on it but I fact that pretty soon concerns from a safety perspective they are on the side of the building so I think about you answer for the school that's probably what you do in this second the thing I don't know literally is if those are going a little south the current soccer fields are the wetness issues I know that's flat I know those fields can get wet on that side I just don't have a great orientation of is this going further than the existing fields go and is there any complication with that upper left no in the right my guess is it's going a little closer to the property line than the current fields that are on the right and so I just don't know about the landfall enough to know if that's a problem or not so it's really a question can you try to you just propose that which I think is agreeable to everyone is that there'd be no reason to redevelop those existing fields which are sitting there right now with their somewhat small drainage issues that they get a little soggy so that would be outside of the scope of the project which is different from that we were saying oh we built new fields there I think what we realized is the drawing really should put a new field over by the gymnasium I think the community would not want to have one field there when you have all the soccer programs they use both fields simultaneously at the same time and if you have them in two parts of the building all the after-school programming gets different whenever you have soccer practice you use both fields at the same time that's if you have two fields currently over to the right-hand side of the screen which I guess self then if you're not touching them you don't have to touch them but I think what Mike was saying which makes an enormous sense to me anyways is that you've got to build another field for the actual elementary school use by the building where that current other diamond is you have to do that because you're not going to walk kids across the parking lot it makes sense I think we'll remove that but not spend any money on it but not spend any money on the second part of the screen okay sorry where do the kids currently play soccer on the field behind the school to the east of the school I think I've got that right the edge of the baseball field right here right where Jesse is with the guard in there yeah now we're going from Carnival directions to baseball field orientation I'm actually better at this one Maria so if they're playing right where the gray where the paved play area that's actually currently a play field if it is okay then you just actually may want to move the paved play in the 5-3-12 play over here put your right field we could put them on the football field and then you don't have to redo all three things yeah that's interesting I don't see the community garden not here it moved into the school football print there it is and then so what do we decide for this that we would budget for all the play structures even if they're existing rub that up I think that's the most responsible thing to do at this point play structures are usually outside of code regulations after just a few years so we bring them all even though these happen to retain the existing ones I guess the question would be you need this play structure for the school for educational this is your pre-k K-5 K-6 are these town use playgrounds would we need to these are additional playgrounds I don't know if they're reflected in the estimate so I think from what you said is that the school is using this playground and this playground it wouldn't necessarily need to do any work to these we should become town playgrounds with this town restroom facility building which exists right now and these existing fields all around so all this is going to be outside of our school I will say that the line I have for the play equipment does some a little low for what we do projects that might be in addition to that there's some movement within the state MAE accessibility board to make a lot of changes to the standards that we use for design and one of that is to say that fiber mulch surfacing they're saying it's no longer accessible so they're requiring work to play surfacing so you're going from $3 a square foot they want to propose these changes and they're realizing what changed yet there were hearings last summer and they said that the changes were going to happen the first of the year I followed up and they said well we're not sure we know they're going to happen if they're going to happen so that's something for you guys also to weigh in how you want to deal with that with that possible change or hold on until that actually the cost implication you go from $35 to $60,000 for surfacing I agree I'm looking at the playground budget I've seen that kind of budget for residential project with much fewer kids so that number probably has to be you're in 2.5 before we get too far from this the MSBA I believe has guidelines or somebody must have guidelines for what's the number of square feet you need for a number of kids if you could just toss that that's for different things this is for the play structure and then there's for the place base or whatever that might be helpful to have so that we can get a sense of why do they think this where for different sizes and are we conforming and do we have the costs right one of the things that I don't this may sound like a funny thing to say but when it comes to adult or town recreational areas including play areas I'm happy to cut those things out because I think reasonably that goes on a different budget or a different line of them for the town what I want to caution us against doing is something Mike said earlier is some of the existing outdoor use areas might need a refresh and what I wouldn't want to do is propose even on a feasibility study propose a building in which somebody said well what's the end product is well these things are going to be completely refreshed and new and somebody would say well you spent 15 million bucks and you still have like a circa 1987 play area in the back what the hell happened right I mean someone's going to say that doesn't make any sense to me I mean but also it just doesn't just roll it into the project right you know refresh this thing so that our play areas I mean within reason double the play area if we think about those costs if we refresh also the town ones it would double the cost no I'm not saying that I'm just saying in terms of the reuse of the school specific ones I would just want to make sure you're using a realistic number a realistic number and also if it needs to be this is something Mike said a while ago needs to be refreshed let's build in refreshing it K through 6 play area pay play adjacent to the gym cafeteria and pre-K play there's a lot of existing pavement now and these could be the existing soccer field as opposed to rebuilding them we would still then need school field somewhere I'm presuming this would all be existing as well although in this case would we be able to use the current because I think all the developments on this side of the project I think I heard you just say that my preference would be that parking lots are we don't have students on fields on the offside of parking lots so very similar to my thoughts on this anyway very similar to option C where that current softball field is one of the fields over there not worry about the two existing fields on the side it's slightly different but I'm measuring to be the same it's anything to be used softball and baseball fields on the other side I've never seen a game there oh my gosh yes we will find you there there you go isn't it the far right one though we use all three fields really? we are yes there's a lot of softball going on come on any evening in between spring and autumn that's why I'm asking that far was lit the big one is the one that is in the south east most park the one that has lights well I knew that one was Janet oh yeah no but we use the others plus graph park so anybody who would like to join us please opportunity for recruiting so we're moving that softball field it would but that's a talented question I can tell you that two out of the three graph fields is getting into things we don't want to know two out of the three graph fields are used one out of the two Kiwanises used my favorite field to play on but the three four river are the most sought after sites that's where we try to play those three fields okay it's getting simpler this is nice so the difference in option E is the gym is backward current exists and the save play is basically where it exists and playground is nearby the gym the cafeteria is moving this way as well which one are we on yeah well this is the most animal all we're really having is preschool in this case cafeteria is up this way so to go to recess you have to go out and around we may need to look at this moving over but not too worried about locations the existing field that you use outside of gym is not affected by this option so I think if we're consistent with what we've used the fields which we propose to give you could just be the existing fields and our site scope for option E is really just going to be limited to these paved areas right around the building and playground, the new playground area is right around the building and a new dedicated pre-paid play right? yeah which is here but you know needs to be finally located but we would include it okay sorry designate the soccer like slide that left hand ball to over but not included in the cost I'm just thinking of in market the you know optional community I don't want to have softball but against the project because they're losing the field but just to indicate there's room we're not costing it as part of the project no matter what happens on this site I guess you know we have our school sites for that matter there's going to be a bigger community conversation about those additional uses because there are heavily swiped outside spaces that's another conversation I think just more generally I think if this project for some versions that's the community conversation so I think for feasibility I think the way, my personal opinion the way we're thinking about it the right way we're doing this project and that raises that question and then a future building committee says how do I do that against the community not just the school input but the larger community input it's not just school people who are voting I think it's a really good point to be aware of that potential discussion I think that has an impact totally on the play area also in the landscape you were assuming the full area the coastal city and planting right so well as all of this changes that's going to change that overall scope over 100,000 dollars so that's keeping the minor earthburn which I guess we skipped at the beginning it's based on the larger area so we can tailor those areas down there we're basically proposing adding a graphic scope line which would get drawn on all these plans that would limit those square footages in a very graphically clear way yeah I think that'll work out so we'll add that so as the question if you hold down on the mechanical entities all that I think that doesn't change for all the projects utilities and I'd probably go so far as to say let's not try to poke at these line items let them revise the scope yeah so I don't want to derail but I have a question about kind of all the options in total we're afraid to wait all that question utilities take up so much on the site development costs at the end of the day people what they see above the ground they think that's where all the site costs went it's actually all underneath the ground stormwater design at this point is very conservative the numbers that are here are conservative in the sense that we don't have enough information to base the sizing of the systems to make the same standards so one thing that you may consider doing is having a deep hole test but the cost is about a little bit less an excavator goes out digs a deep hole, a soil evaluator goes and looks at the soil and that gives our firm the ability to size the systems and look at the square footages of the building the square footages of the parking and you'll find some of these numbers to see where it goes so if you're looking at a really finer grain if you're worried about the finer grain utility cost that's an exercise if you go through if you want to leave it at this the cost I'm going to hold my colleagues I guess I'm going to talk about this having a discussion about a place service area I feel like we should resolve but I don't think I think we need to make an assumption from the project it's not clear when and where the state is going to do it but since we're already assuming a couple years ahead I mean I don't know if that regulation right now it's a big deep question about when the AAB is really going to get to reissue they and the governor's office are having some issue around other aspects of the regulation but I think it's safer to assume a more conservative approach I will also add there have been cases that the AAB has heard and filed on so if someone comes to an municipality with a complaint I mean that the wood surface is inaccessible and it's not it is and it's maintained and it's not maintained and it's not accessible and so in those cases the ruling has been that it's not accessible and you have to pay for all this testing and maintenance or put it forward so just slightly variation on this conversation I think separate from what the legal constraints are it may be the case that the community says we want our example of this and we want to go see a truly accessible playground and so there may be legal pieces but I think in this community I believe there's going to be people who rightfully are advocating for building a new playground how are we now making it accessible as possible with the law I compare it to a zero piece there's no one externally saying you need to do that zero in the community says we value that and I imagine this may be may fall into some category around accessibility a related point actually is that on January 22nd we're actually getting back a presentation for a consultant who's doing an ADA audit of all of our school facilities and that's something that the school committee and the leadership of the district and the superintendent really wanted to do but it also came of substantial public comment and engagement with us that this was a value we wanted to understand and push so I think I'm just echoing what you're saying but that is not even a foreseeable issue it's actually a living one with the facilities we currently have two things one is we have fairly generous contingencies built in with that cover additional costs that's a question the other thing is I would like to speak in favor of doing that is the cost of holding a place in the budget I believe it is if you look for play area 2 and 5 option A we've got 94,000 plus 235,000 that would cover it over $300,000 board of play services play area 2 and 5 play area 5 and 12 right below baseball and softball field it's $300,000 should get us something it's not the moment one is the square footage and the other one is the play structure for town I think we made an attempt to put it in the budget we'll check and make sure it's quite right but if you wanted to go back to the mulch we could reduce the cost of sight which is what we were thinking about but yeah we need to look at that also and make sure we check it out we'll continue to work on this so are we close to a point where we close what's the test issue can we address the test well I guess what I would say I think we need to address where our funding budget is I don't disagree with the idea of wanting to explore that further but I wonder if we should not table that to our next meeting and explore it in that bigger context so it's not a lot of money it's just a support I have a question do we go under budget that's why I want to get back to the budget budget's not on the let's just take a look at it at our next meeting we need to perform that test because we're trying to wrap up our report here before springtime and if everything's frozen things aren't going to flow I'll double check I think from what I understand the soil that I hear looks at the color might they be able to get that marforine not unless it gives us an idea where groundwater is it doesn't confirm the classification of soil and how well it works so my suggestion is going to be that we probably make the budget a regular mention of that item and since I'm the one with access to units I'll report starting at the next meeting just to regularly fair withstand that sorry can we do that in the context of getting with this form we're still there let's get it all squared can we get an estimate of what the cost would be for the test bits so that we have that conversation if we do it or not we can have one informed conversation around whether we do it sort of get it over with like I want to get this done so I guess we're directing you to get it just give us a ballpark so we can have that conversation so so I have a question about just kind of all the options in total and I have no notion of the answer that carries at what point is it appropriate for this committee to start talking about whether we continue with all six of these options well that's really part of our charge though is that basket but yeah go ahead because I mean there's six options right now and I know these cost tests are still being worked on but option D is more expensive than option C it's a year longer to construct and on the plus side we get to keep more of the building okay option E saves us $800,000 over option C to again do even less again the numbers aren't final but at what point is it useful to spend energy going through all five or six options every time are some of these options something that we might want to ask the designers to stop so I don't have a notion I mean I guess you know where I'm leaning but I don't have a notion of at what stage it's appropriate to do that I wanted to ask a question about some of the options as well because just as I was going through options A B and D have an approximate square foot of 85 but options C and E actually this is for A just okay the base option there's the base and then there's one, two and three so so for C and E it's about 80,000 square feet so I had two questions that makes it that's a big difference how are we getting everything we need 80 in some and 85 in others and that's going to make a big difference and if you look at the final cost then that's gonna that's one of the reasons it's different lower than D we're we're showing you all the rooms and how they work out in each option C and E use the existing gym whereas D provides the new larger gym that's one of the biggest differences in terms of square footage and originally we wanted to look at that as an option whether it made sense to reuse the existing gym and live within a small footprint if you say now okay we decided it's not making sense we're ranging a little bit but not that much then we should go away from that that accounts for maybe two thirds differential square footage because when you add the gross factor to the gym square footage the rest of it I think is due to the variability between the layouts so when you say they're about 85 well they're ranging a little bit depending on how things fit together so you're gonna get different amounts of gross the two-story building has stairwells and elevators so that drives up the overall square footage for the same program area we tried in the studies to keep the program area as equivalent as you know and yet in option E we looked at just an addition for pre-K we fit everything into the rest of the square footage as best we could you know I think it's mostly circulation you can look at it if you see a room that's not showing up so the grossing factor that's mostly different in addition to the different size of the gym plus the grossing factor I'd say grossing factor is second there's efficiency in C and E perhaps okay so I think I can speak in the perspective of the school committee actually even recently in the meeting I don't think the committee ever expected to get six options anyway and so six options is more than anyone anticipated I understand that you can kind of take off option F because that's really just giving you a baseline understanding of the cost of fixing an existing structure since that doesn't need any of our educational program objectives you can almost kind of discount it and throw it away and say it's just useful information to have and it's not actually an option it's just baseline information the challenge it may sound like a very funny thing to say but the challenge for me is I think if we wanted and we saw benefits to the quality of the study to cut down the number of options that would be fine what I would kind of wouldn't want to do is I wouldn't want to spend the next six weeks fighting tooth and nail and killing each other to try to figure out which option to eliminate and so if there was substantial disagreement over if there was an option that we could eliminate that everyone kind of agreed look you don't need to study that that's fine then that's great I think if in the end we're going to kill each other over it and put it in and having more information has never hurt anyone I very much agree I definitely don't want to if there's strong constituencies for each option I don't think it's to our advantage to fight over it I just was curious about having and not deciding today but deciding in the next couple of meetings are there some options that we are as a group we already know we're not really interested in and saving the architect and ourselves some time is the report these diagrams in my mind and we can edit them as you wish but I think they've been included and they exist so wouldn't you scoot them in your report I think the question is do you is the reports pretty big are you going to focus the report down in the summary or in conclusions whatever and look at options more closely perhaps and maybe that's what we're realizing now is that while we may not recommend an option I'm just throwing this out there but we want to talk about what we learn in this study and then there may be some options that seem to us to have more potential or impacts yeah, however I'm thinking that that would be a natural way to end the report can you want to consider how we position this study in relationship to the MSBA traditional process and I know that through other feasibility studies that are directly through the MSBA they like to at least see you addressed a renovation ad-renewal and new building so that type of framework you can choose to not proceed with any of the fact that you have acknowledged those three pathways so I think we should also I know we're running out of time I don't think we should try to make a decision today around this I think it would actually be more helpful if you were if you had a concept and so two, that's one if we assume that the basic the complete study with its appendices included all six versions and I know there's sub variants but I'm saying all six versions and also as I sort of banged the table like the Gita Khrushchev last time making sure we include information around not having preschool as well as having preschool to figure out what that cost looks like or that difference looks like then to me the idea that an executive summary or the front end of the report focuses on new ad-renewal and row makes complete sense to me but I think what we want the committee to be able to do is visualize what that looks like for the report so people can see does this do I feel like I'm losing too much granularity or does this look right in terms of the information and it certainly would solve what we were looking for from the school committee's perspective what the town is looking for well I think it's something we can come back to at another meeting I have a question do we have to talk about what you think what I was going to do is if we can we can stay together for another couple of minutes and at least pick off a couple as I put on a future meeting and then I can sort of around what the big picture is what we're really focusing on as the base case which of this needs to give the highlighted yellow and the box around them for this scheme cost this and I think that gets really into where we started this conversation what our energy use potentially targets for the renovation right now we're saying it's the the higher one without meeting at zero and it really makes a false comparison between the new structure and these ad-rentos because it's important to anyway I think that could be a big conversation for a future agenda for a future agenda okay I do have public outreach but I'm kind of thinking I might like to use geotech and survey kind of report about okay so the survey Berkshire as I mentioned last time was completely field work they estimate they have a week left in the office to finalize the report that's a full week of working days so it's going to be after the holidays probably that was my last conversation with Berkshire on geotech the last town signature was achieved yesterday O'Reilly, Talbot and Akun is already in touch with Diane about setting up on the site they are raring to go so I assume that is going to be much faster but probably after the new years oh I'm sorry, I doubt that can they do it in the meantime with the process of they use a drilling rig and go right through that is all for a survey agenda cool and given that we are I don't know how our passbook would be you said 1030 yes I did we also thought we would be lucky to achieve Gorm for that long we have been very lucky to keep it I think we are still lucky we had a working group on public outreach okay you said you have or have not we have not met because I was so absorbed but I didn't send out an email but we need to do that and I will certainly send an email I guess I have already spoken on the public outreach I was wondering in the meeting report that I with the 11th with remembering that we had said we would write stamp unreviewed on that and I was wondering had that been done on the website because last time I checked it I have not checked stamp review so there is something on our website that is sitting there that has some pretty you know, PSPP will make these changes and if it has never talked about those things and so it is just sitting on the website like we did this thing and we haven't done that thing and so we need to say on the front page it is on the first page that is all been updated so the PDF was changed to include something that said not the PDF no the PDF I didn't change any PDFs we should get the stamp draft I have a comment on membership with our current fantastic momentum on membership I am wondering if it is worth asking for the teacher position I think we could of course go on but yes I think we should give it a try we will give it a shot we have talked about reaching out to our Tigerese here is the cool thing about this the farther this goes on the less time we are actually asking come for a couple weeks enjoy it and it is for the fun part I think we were talking about it before the meeting started but to have that once a facilities director is on board with the school district presumably join us because that is a position the position itself is supposed to be a member of the it is not a person but a position that person will need to fill or she will need to be sworn in that is moving forward I know that is moving forward do we know the start date for that that is not official yet but it is in process it is not okay I just want to publicly thank yes I had to do a bit of rewriting I thought I had it all set it got done I don't think we have the invoices to review I think we could actually be done could I say something about your just quickly the last go round when we had presentations by the previous Bill England they only really talked about two and kind of blew the other ones aside so if you are going into public forums even though some of these are not desirable I think they need to be presented with a little bit of information otherwise you hurt your credibility as many so maybe you all thought about that but I watched the other group and they had nine nine different designs and they really focused on two and the other ones well you can say that but I think you still need to present the information I think this is actually why I raised my point about wanting to see what it looked like to get a to get the