 On Wednesday, November 20th, at 12.30, this meeting is being taped by Amherst Media. And then we are at the Amherst Police Station meeting. I'm going to hand it out again to Stu, myself, and dive right in. So I just called us to order. We do not have meeting minutes to approve for the previous meeting. Our meeting minute taker has had to resign, and so we'll have to recreate those from the recording. And so we will work that out at a future meeting for those of us. And I will not take time today to try to figure out how to do that. Public comments, we don't have anyone out there in the seats. But we did receive a public comment via email. And they asked that it be kind of read into the public record, and I'll hand it over to our public meetings, and someone can come, and I will do that. Maybe I'll actually take a breath. This is from CPAC, it says, Dear Committee, we appreciate the time and work being done by the Fort River Feasibility Study Committee working group. And in collaboration with the architects to consider this project, providing for an effective learning environment for our students is very important. And the review of the building and potential renovation plans is critical. While developing possible scenarios for this proposal, we are grateful that the members of our special education parent advisory council have been part of this group, out of the group. Planning that takes into consideration the needs of students with disabilities is something that we believe to be essential. The immersed public school district values inclusion and the work and recommendations of the group needs to reflect this value. As you proceed with your work, review potential floor plans, we hope you will consider our shared perspective that the special education specialized programs be in locations near the general education classrooms. Access to and inclusion in the general education learning environment is a priority, and the layout of the building will be important to support this instructional model. Thank you for your work, Keith, and keeping the inclusiveness of our special education programs as a top priority, and signed Nancy Stewart, CPAC president, and also signed by a favorite director of student services. We will add that to our record. Now, moving on, we will have room for about an hour because Diane has to go. And I did hear from Allison that she wasn't able to come, and so I hope we can get through a lot of this in the next hour. Before we dive into the public outreach, I just want to touch base with Anthony Geotech about whether or not we need to vote on what you just sent around. I think we voted on the last one, so probably make sense to this reflects comments from Jesse and you reviewed them. Jim McPherson has not offered any subcontracts on this draft. I would like to at least check it with him so he notices anything, but it's still 80% his scope. It eliminates the second item, which I think did probably just cause confusion. Reduces the number of borings to six, and changes some of the details around that, but is still basically just trying to get this under 10. So I'll be soliciting the same people, and yeah, there's two of them. So a couple of things, in the Geotech request, does it specify the locations or do we still maintain some flexibility? It's basically just six at a depth of at least 25 and then one at 60. We highlight them as proposed boring locations, which I think, which I took to take to mean that's where we'd like them, but if the engineer has a reason to think that one should be moved, we would consider it. So are we going to be talking about location any further? Is this the time to talk about it? I think we can, because it's not specific, we can talk about it further and make sure that everybody feels like we've got the right locations. I mean, should we talk about it now or should we just kind of plunge on with getting this out there, getting what we're going to need to get done? I would encourage us to move it forward. So we put it as a future agenda. So moving the boring within the Fortress site, while keeping the same number of borings would not affect the price proposed boring. Assuming it still acts as a school from the same rate, I would think so. Okay, I want a boring river down the road. Yeah, it could be through the woods. Yeah, that could be a different matter. Okay. And the other question I got was, I think Allison had mentioned that she had the remains of some other companies and I just didn't know if that was still going to happen. Or does it need to happen to some other people to solicit from them? I had forgotten that she had offered that, but I'll email her before I, I'd like to send it Monday, so I'll email her after the meeting and see if she wants to send me a contact. I'm happy to include other comments and questions. Can I have the same one, I love it. If we could have a motion then to, to authorize this to go out. Move to authorize this RFQ for Geotechnical Services. Let's go ahead. All in favor? Okay. So, next is to review your updated provoked presentation. Yes. Thank you very much. So, this I think of as a dry run of our community outreach reach with the school committee next week. And what we've done is prepared pretty good handouts, two images per page. We also have the PowerPoint presentation. I have not timed this. I believe we're asked if it would be 20 minutes. It would be interesting for me to know just how long it runs so that if necessary, we can tear it down. With that in mind, should we let you run through it and see how long it takes? Yes, if you don't mind, if you don't mind sort of timing sections of it and that way I'll know what we're running late. Just tell me what you'd like to have a section with that. My typical is one slide per minute. I don't know. It'll be less than one slide. Okay. Can I ask a question? Are you going to lay out any expectations, enter in some random committee questions? I just have one slide that sort of talks about pre-detention goals. No, I'm saying are you going to tell people the hardware questions at the end of the presentation? Oh, I see. Oh, when we're meeting with the school committee? Yeah. I think that's a good idea. I think the school committee, that won't be... Well, I'm just... If we want to get you in 20 minutes... I'm just forewarning you that knowing our committee, the timing exercises we're about to do will be irrelevant to the actual length of the presentation unless you ask them to hold their questions to the end. I see. Because in their eagerness to... Yeah! They'll only be able to interrupt the first slide. Say, what does TSKB stand for? Well, that's part of my presentation. Anyway, so we can start now and I'll try to delineate where I'm changing sections. So the first point is that we have certain goals that we would like to achieve in this presentation, one of which is to introduce who we are, who TSKB is. The second is to give the school committee an update on the work that the building committee has been doing along with us in developing some options. We would like to then review those options with the school committee and then hand in that request and some feedback. We'd like your input. This is a work in progress. We're not going to have the inclusion of our feasibility study, but we think it's important. We're at this stage today. So let's start with the first question, which is who is TSKB? TSKB is an architectural firm with offices in Hartford and in Boston, both Jesse and I, from the Hartford office. And we've been involved since the beginning of this project. The firm was founded in 1970 in previous iterations. It was known as Tyson-Cube Partners and hence it's become known as TSKB Studio. I'm one of the four partners in the firm. If you look at the body of our work in schools, you'll see that there are certain things that are similar in those projects. One of which is the work is very simple. I think it's very appropriate in school work to keep it simple. We believe that our work also is very child-friendly. We try to scale the project so that its components are more in keeping with the size of children. We try to have fun with some details you can see around windows, square windows in this particular project, which is an early childhood project. It also features green building technologies, such as in this case, using salvaged wood from storm-damaged trees that were recycled to be on a rain screen system applied to this building. Natural light is another feature of the work that we've done. If we can achieve a building that minimizes the use of electric light fixtures so that you can use them during the day without turning on the lights, then we've achieved a lot. That's always been one of our goals. We believe in creating spaces that are multi-functional. It creates a much more efficient use of square footage. For example, in this case, we use gymnasium as well as an auditorium. Sometimes we use a stage that faces the gymnasium or faces the cafeteria as another example. We believe in specifying beautiful and durable products. We think that that's in the long-term best interest of the schools because once you have those systems installed, you want to minimize operational maintenance costs in the future so that when we do budgeting for a project, we can keep that in mind so that the budgets are appropriately prepared. Connections to the outdoors are very important in this case, which is also an early childhood project. You'll see that the windows are placed in locations so that little people can see outside very easily. These days, security is very, very important in school planning. We're very aware of that. One of my partners served on the Connecticut task force after the Sandy Hook event on the governor's guidelines for school security. So we're very familiar with the details that need to be incorporated in a project such as making sure that school administration can monitor entrances in the building and keeping those entrances to a minimum. Okay, so that's who we are. Let's talk a little bit about what we've done for your feasibility study. One of the things we did is we investigated the existing conditions. We sent all of our consultants, which include mechanical electrical engineers, site engineers, site planners, structural engineers, and sustainable consultants to the existing Fort River School to examine it and its site. And we divided that investigation into three components. One is the infrastructure. What kinds of improvements are necessary now to just bring that infrastructure up to speed? Second is educational needs. How does the existing building fall short to meeting your educational goals? And third is security aspects. We prepared those existing conditions reports, which are a separate cover that I submitted for the building. We examined the roof. We examined exterior walls, which are uninsulated. We examined mechanical systems. And we examined the footprint of the existing building, which was built in the early 1970s. The pictures in the lower right-hand corner are examples of schools that were built at that time. Moveable walls, open classrooms. That was what people did at that time. This school is a good example of what happened during that era. Not only this school, but it's sister school in town. Wildwood School is also using exactly the same plans. And if you examine the plans, you'll see that we have open classrooms in those quadrants, those quads. Each of those open spaces are invisible into four subclassrooms, subspaces. Some of which don't have adequate natural day lighting, in my opinion. Which creates a need for passage around the spaces, resulting in classrooms that are quite small. Some of these classrooms are 725 square feet. There's one there that's 706. Just to put that in perspective, if you look at the state guidelines, if you're getting funding from MSBA, for example, the MSBA requires that you have classrooms at 900. That's the minimum 900 square feet. So that kind of puts you in perspective of what the state of the art is for school planning versus what you have. Another aspect of this plan is that the common areas such as the cafeteria, the gymnasium, the media center, those kinds of spaces that are very often used by the community for meetings and after-hour activities are dispersed in the footprint, so you can't get to those spaces unless you go through the academic areas. That creates some security issues. And in current thinking, you need to create those kinds of common spaces that have access directly from the outside. Without having to go through the classroom spaces. These are just photographs of the existing classrooms in having with daylight. Some of these rooms are quite dim. And then there are these very small courtyards with no accessibility to them. Accessibility is a problem not only within the building but outside the building as well. These are just some examples of the tiered seating, the step seating in the media center, the inaccessible courtyards, the bathrooms that are really updated. Outside we have walks that don't meet current standards for accessibility. And this was an investigation done by our site consultant. Okay, next section, let's talk about enrollment analysis. We did look at the enrollment projections for the school. And this tabulation shows you in the upper left-hand corner, the current enrollment for grades K through 6, which is 1076, that projection shows a fairly level population in the future. Although the school administration believes that if you go to a dual language program at the Fort River School, that that population will be reconfigured in the district. So the population of Fort River would be increasing from the present. We could meet for 20 grades K through 6. And the other schools would be adjusted down a little bit. The population derives the space needs for your school. So if you look at the range of existing to proposed population from previous to 420, there's a certain square footage that's calculated. Again, using certain standards, including the MSBA standards. One factor in the options discussion has been this pre-K part of the program. So we did pull that out. There's 45 pre-K pupils that could be added. So the population of 420 could become 465 at the Fort River School. And so they're projecting a square footage of 84,000 square feet for Fort River School if you include pre-K classrooms. How does that compare to the existing? The existing is 78,000 square feet. Now if you look at the MSBA guidelines for a population of 465, the MSBA says you should have a school of about 72,700 square feet. And they have a formula that they use and they don't take pre-K into account. Take the classrooms without the demonstrations. Sorry, part of the head-hand areas for pre-K they don't account. So that's why their square footage is a little bit less. There are other factors into why we believe you need a larger footprint. And that's because you have certain guidelines for populations per classroom. Your goal is 20, whereas MSBA, their projection is 24, typically in classroom populations. So if you have fewer pupils per classroom, you need more classrooms. That's an impact. In addition to that, you have the district special ed requirements. You have aims as well as building blocks program at Fort River. That adds some footage as well as the pre-K admin and support that I mentioned a few minutes ago. So that's how we come up with 85,000 according to MSBA. We use the MSBA guidelines to adjust them. But for our planning purposes, we're using the target number of 84,000 square feet for grades pre-K through 6 and 4K. This chart compares the other elementary schools with Fort River, Wildwood and Proctor Farm. You can see the square footage is for each of the existing schools. 71,000 roughly at Proctor Farm, 78,000 from Fort River and Wildwood. I guess this is a repeat of similarly what we did in the previous slide. But actually, what we wanted to do here is look at Proctor Farm. One of the items that we discussed with the building committee, they asked us, go look at Proctor Farm. We think Proctor Farm works pretty well. So we did visit Proctor Farm. We also visited Wildwood so that we could get a better understanding of all three schools. And if we were to adjust the Proctor Farm square footage to use the gymnasium size per MSBA guidelines, and if we also added the district special ed programs, then Proctor Farm would have to be adjusted upward to roughly 82,000 square feet. The population also drives, in addition to square footage, the curriculum spaces or the classroom spaces that are necessary in the school. The building committee asked school administration to come up with a list of spaces that would be appropriate for a school of the size. So we do have in our study a complete tabulation of the anticipated spaces, the number of classrooms. We have three kindergarten rooms. We have three kindergarten rooms. We have 18 general classrooms. That's all part of the planning for the future school. Next section, we'd like to talk about the sustainability of net zero. Because in Amherst, you have some count bylaws, regulations that now come into play, which is that new buildings need to adhere to net zero goals. So I'm going to ask Jesse to walk us through what that means for your project. Thanks, Richard. Well, first thing we want to hit on is that sustainability is very important to us. All the work we do is sustainable, and this is a more holistic view of the project than the net zero requirement, which Richard just referenced. This is that we're looking for our schools to be safe and healthy, resource efficient in general, flexible and adaptable to handle future changes that we're not having to redo or tear down our buildings, and then durable and maintainable. But we want to talk a little more about the energy side, which is where your net zero bylaw comes into play. This slide shows the sort of ratcheting down of energy codes over time as they affect the energy use in our buildings. So you can see in the 1980s, our energy use could be as high as 100, but now with lead version four, which this project would fall under, energy use would need to be below 50. And that's something I think you're aware of that codes keep getting more stringent. Well, net zero has another component to reducing our energy usage in a building. You can see this slide shows the energy demand dropping similar to the last slide, but we're not able to make our energy usage go away completely. Of course, we're going to use some energy. So net zero requires us to introduce renewable energy. This is probably solar panels, formal tags. And so by introducing renewable energy, we're able to offset the energy used in our building and achieve a net zero condition of zero energy use. And that's the idea. This slide talks about possible energy targets for Fort River. Second to the bottom is a typical green building, which is what we might do if we weren't pursuing net zero, wouldn't involve renewable energy, but we could have a source EUI of about 55, and it would have less energy costs per year than an average building, which is at the top. Whereas a net zero building would have zero energy use and zero energy costs because those renewables are able to offset all of the energy use on the site. In the project. This slide is just to remind us that if we're accepted to the MSBA pipeline for this project, that their funding is contingent upon achieving lead certification or chips verification. We also need to be 10% better than energy code to achieve any funding from the state. So these are targets we have in mind. The committee has asked us to pursue a project which would be certified as part of our budgeting study. And then finally our six mechanical options, which I don't have time to go through in great detail. I can tell you that we're studying all six of these in our study. The bottom one, option six, was a request from Mr. McPherson, the facilities director, because he felt it was the most maintainable. And so that's the basis for our study, but we're also looking at all of the other five. It happens that the bottom one, while maybe the most maintainable, also has the highest operational cost. And so considering our net zero goals, we need to keep everything on the table. And so we're going forward with all six. Okay. I'm going to briefly walk you through the design options that we've been examining with the building committee. There are a total of seven, A, B, C, D, E, and F. In six of them, we achieve these design options. These were identified as non-negotiable options that have to be incorporated in our solutions. And so we've achieved all of them. Every one that you see on this list is a natural light in all of the classrooms to environmental analysis. So let's talk about that. So when you look at the variables, the factors that we've been examining in the study, which is do we build new, do we renovate, do we do a combination of new and renovate and various degrees, do we include pre-K or don't we include pre-K? With quite a number of options. In fact, the total is 147 options. So I'm going to share with you a matrix that kind of goes through that, but I just want to touch upon these very, very quickly. So the range is from 100% new on the left. That's option A to option F on the extreme right, which is base repair option. This does not achieve those goals that I just showed you on the previous slide. What it does do, it establishes a base repair number. If you're not concerned about achieving, I shouldn't say that. If you just want to have a base to compare with the other options, and if you do nothing except just repair the building, that's option F. So that's the range of options that we've been looking at. So let's start with A, which is 100% new. That's represented by the blue rectangle that you see in this aerial diagram, or in plan form. The dotted line represents the fourth trend of the existing building. So the concept here is that new building would be built, and this illustration shows a two-story new building placed adjacent to the existing building, just south of the existing building. And then after that's built, you move into the new building in the open, the old building can be demolished, and the site improvements can be finished. So what are the pink areas? The pink areas represent photovoltaic panels that would be placed on the roof, would be placed on the ground in order to achieve net zero in the new building. Remember your regulation that says if you're building a new building, you have to achieve net zero. So in order to do that, we would have to have photovoltaic panels in that quantity to achieve that. Very briefly, option A, the new option is a two-story building. Common areas are located on the ground floor, so you have media center, gymnasium, cafeteria, and then you have classrooms both on the ground level and on the second level. And pre-pay is shown in the lower right corner. Sorry, this isn't visible. Hopefully it's visible in this move in the evening. They also have a screen. Both then I'll use a whole fashion pointer and I'll point to it. So on the lower right corner of the ground floor is the pre-K option that could be either in the plant or not in the plant. For the sake of this study and these diagrams, we're including in the three pre-K classrooms. Okay, let's look at option B. Option B represents 50% new construction, 50% renovation. So in this case, we will be building a new building, a two-story building shown, represented by this blue rectangular area adjacent to the existing building. And then once the new building is built, we will be able to phase into the new building to occupy that portion, vacate the portion of the existing building, do some renovation work, eventually removing portion of the existing building, that's about 50% new and 50% renovation. Now in this case, there's fewer affordable take-downs required because only the new building needs to be at zero. And so you end up with, as you can see in this diagram, the reconfiguration of the playfields after the building is completed. And this diagram represents what is new, which is in blue. The gray area is what's the renovated area and the tan area is the areas that will be removed. And you can see that we're removing a portion of the media center in the center and creating a larger courtyard in the middle, which looks like this. So every classroom has natural light. Every classroom is on the perimeter of the building, either on the perimeter on the outside or facing that courtyard that's located in the center. Common areas are all collected together, so that area can be opened after hours without having people going to the educational or the academic areas. The administrative area is located adjacent to the main entry, so the main entry can be monitored for security purposes from the administrative area, as you can see. The difference between option B and option P1 is the pre-K. Option A is option B1, and in this case we have pre-K located here in the lower left-hand corner. The upper level of this option has academic spaces. Option C, I'm sorry, and that was a two-story addition. This option C is a one-story shelving addition, which represents 29% new and 71% renovation. We chose to look at possibility of adding new construction to the north side of the building, as you can see here. In this option we're also creating a courtyard in the center. Less or fewer portable take panels are required because the new construction is smaller. The renovation is larger, new construction is smaller, but we're still removing a portion of the existing building, the cafeteria, kitchen area, center area to be removed. So that, again, we end up with classrooms, all with exterior window walls, facing outside on the perimeter, or facing the courtyard in the center. In this option, the entrance is on the left side of this footprint, and all of the common areas are located on the left side in this one-story addition. Option D is a smaller addition. It's only 18% new and 82% organizational. Smaller photovoltaics, less demolition, less new construction. Again, it's a courtyard scheme, placing all of the classrooms on the perimeter, or facing the courtyard in the natural big lighting. In this case, the main entrance is the favorite board toward the right. We relocated the admins to the front of the building, security reasons, showing the pre-k in the lower right corner of the plan that this option D1 should be. It's a very small addition, primarily just for pre-k, and relatively few photovoltaic systems, because the only portion that truly has to be net zero is new construction. Very small addition, and again, similar kind of strategy for getting exterior walls to follow the classroom. Now, this option still uses a gym, in the left-hand side of the footprint, so we still have this issue of not collecting all the common areas. We still have to travel through academic areas to get to the gymnasium after hours. And then finally, option F, which is just bringing the building up to code and bringing the building up to speed in terms of some of this infrastructure. But does that address the open classroom areas? Does that create those kinds of exterior-improving spaces for all the classrooms? All of these options, of which there are 147, if you look at this, patrics, are being cost-effective. In fact, we've already had one round of costing done. For the sake of this committee, I'm telling you this, we're not going to be prepared because we need to vet all those numbers in time, but we're going to have a school committee. So I need to present this blank matrix that will be populated with costs at a subsequent meeting. This kind of shows you all the range of options. We were hired to do options. I think we've developed quite a number of options for the committee's further consideration. That's where we are as of today. Presentation? 27 minutes. That's without interruption. I think we would want to make it a little bit shorter. My personal gut is that we could... I kind of like the way that one slide about the site is condensed. Now, maybe we can't condense the existing building slide. That slide's that much, but if we could tighten up that piece, because I think this committee is pretty aware of the issues in and around the building and that we could, instead of, maybe cut back from three or four slides to just make it a little tighter. Existing conditions? Yeah, okay. So you know that was... The existing conditions took about four minutes. And to the topic that the headline wanted was about four minutes as well. I'll see you know. I'm only going to cut that in half. The enrollment stuff. I mean, I thought it was all kind of interesting and relevant, but it also seems very... I don't know if that's a place that could... Yeah, I don't personally have a suggestion to quite have it tightened up, but if there's a way to make it tighter. I think that's a good place to leave language tips for questions. I think you can compare enrollment. You can compress it. I think the first slide makes sense and maybe... Yeah, maybe the first two and probably there's going to be questions and they're going to ask you how that compares. And then you have the slides ready to answer those questions. But you don't need to answer all the questions up front. You can leave some for... to be asked after this. So if I understand you said keep the comparison to MSBA guidelines. Keep the comparison to... Put the comparison to Crocker Farm and the existing schools in the resource. Yeah, maybe. Or maybe have it, they are showing but not dead into Italy then they may come out after. So I think it's important to talk about it. So rather than do that, I would... You know how you've got the two slides about... these two, the right size and without the... with and without the MSBA. I would just give the first one the two slides. I think it's important to... I think it's important to... I think it's important to... I would just give the first one that doesn't have the MSBA. And then I think that... and I might do the same thing on the bottom or actually there, get rid of the bottom or where you go into the elaborate the big comparison to Crocker Farm. I think it's important for people to know to get a vision in their head of... I can picture Wildwood, Crocker Farm, Fort River. I have a sense of how big they are and this is giving them a sense of what you're talking about for that 420, 465 and actually the 315. I think what might be more confusing is having the 315 to 420 in that first bit. So maybe you could put the... leave the current size of Fort River, the 315 in that second bunch of slides and the point that we're getting at is this is what we're looking to build and this is in the MSBA guidelines. So... There were four slides here I think we could probably do one slide. Or two. Or maybe two. Yeah. The 420 comes up from us, not from the MSBA guidelines. So I think 420 is an important number to target. Yeah. Yeah, but we're saying... to say the MSBA and what we're working on. So that's why we're... they don't even know why we're talking about that. I want to comment on the slide with this one. Yes. The current for one boot the color coding is not right. You're correct. It's a duplication of 420. It's a duplication for Fort River but it's very different. I think that has an impact because right now 1 with this as 416 or 420 because it's the target number that we are going but the color coding is quite different from 420. I mean, make it more generic if you don't have the... It's mainly, I think one boot mainly is every quad is 3 to 4 occupied by classrooms. I think that... For sure, all of them are 3 and I think there's a quad is 4 classrooms. Eric? What's the point of the slide? I mean to me, what I'm going to get at is to me, you're moving from 315 to 420 you're relating that to the adoption of dual language and the assumption of the need for 3 classrooms per grade. You're then saying that absent projection or current projection of overall enrollment growth that that will then have an impact on the enrollment in the other schools and at least are cognizant of that fact, right? Who cares about these illustrations? You know what I'm saying? Why even show them at all? Because you're getting into a discussion which is absolutely pointless and contrary to the... I mean this feasibility committee is not designed to reprogram the enrollment. It's to come up with a rationale for why you have a number before river. So I personally would... I don't disagree with what Arena is saying that if the programming that's shown in the illustrations isn't accurate, just get rid of the illustrations because it's not actually the point of the slide. No, that's a good point. I mean those diagrams are distracting. It's just creating false precision around it. The programming, how much space it takes in different schools... I mean it may not hurt to have at the back of the set if a question comes up about the schools that... But I agree with Eric that I don't think it does anything for this slide to have that information there and certainly if there's something wrong we don't want to show something wrong. So what we can do is try to correct Wildwood with that as a resource slide to show how they compare. But it's distracting on this slide. There's really only one message as Eric described. I think the other thing with having the numbers there has the district said that if you build a 420 Fort River School then I think people are going to zoom in on oh wait a minute I'll go from 345 to 290. People might get distracted by that. I don't know if that's solid data from the district. They did say they gave you those numbers. So I wasn't aware that they had talked about that. I can understand if you want to take this enrollment discussion outside of the feasibility study. It does seem like if you're talking about a certain size school you're likely to be asked well the current school is it based on enrollment projection going up? Which isn't really the case. We have enrollment projections but they're not showing the district increasing all the time. So this was a logical explanation for why the enrollment's increased. Is that our scope? Yeah I don't actually think it is. My understanding is the district answered the question of what the impact might be on the other schools because you asked it. If you hadn't asked the question what's the impact? What's the potential impact on the other schools? I don't think they would have gone through this modeling exercise of saying if we have 420 at Fort River what is that implication? The only feedback I've heard from the superintendent on this is that it's probably a good message that if we were to build a larger school at Fort River and if there was a draw from Crocker in particular that it might relieve some of the space pressure they have at Crocker which is a good thing. That's not a bad message to say that if we're modeling a school that's at 420 that's related also to the adoption of dual language and we think that that's a nice message to have but I think to me there's just a lot of it's projecting beyond the visibility committee and I think I actually agree with what Maria said that too many audiences could look at those numbers and infer that decisions are being made or planned that in fact aren't. This is really just an answer to the question of what conceivably could be the impact of having a larger enrollment at Fort River and that's all it is. I think that the material point that you make is if you have increased enrollment at Fort River I would want people to come away with the knowledge that so that means if we stay level with enrollment that eases and it's not just Wildwood eases space constraints at Wildwood and Crocker. Somehow getting that across without putting numbers down to like that look that specific I think you could also make the point of in the case of increased enrollment in the district which over the 50 year of life of new building if those numbers go up and you have a large you know this gives you sure it gives you some cushion which is good planning but we started out with what's the target number right and I think it's a group we said 420 is the right number oh and by the way that has some other benefits too which is that if you do fill it with 420 you could relieve some pressure on the other side. And maybe to say how do we get to that because I don't know that in this I know we've talked about how we got to the 420 but in the presentation to the school committee to say that's three classes per grade at 20 per you know just to give them the math on it. Right that's actually a good yeah but that's not shown. Also I think to me to me it goes to sort of the larger point of the presentation is that to me apart from just informing people about what's going to be in the feasibility study part of the exercise is to lay out what are the components what are the deliverables and sort of what's the rationale behind the deliverables right you know and so one of the one of those is if you pick a number like 420 is that based on anything in a way that feels realistic so that goes to that goes to this slide on what the enrollment is and how you come up with that number it doesn't make sense I think it also goes to the other discussion about blocking out the space from the square foot it's in saying you know especially with the inclusion of building blocks and aims at Fort River and different classroom average classroom sizes that there's a logic to why the number is what it is but I think once you've laid out what that logic is sort of rational and why it's defensible you're done right meaning anything else beyond that starts getting into a level of precision around those particular elements that's beyond what's necessary it might be even be almost desirable because in the end this is a this is a conceptual analysis which is trying to look at different options and look at the feasibility of different options we're not to beat a dead horse on this but we're not actually going to choose one of these options and build it literally it's going to inform a conversation which is going to help the community plan out and I probably should kind of reinforce that it's very easy for any of us to kind of slip into language that makes it sound like there's going to be a building coming directly out of this there won't be so we just all have to be very careful when we're talking when we talk here we're going to try to be careful but when we're talking more publicly about how this is a feasibility focused study that will inform the town but then it'll have to be picked up in another way and just to to tag on this and I'll stop to see that's sort of one of my general feedback to the presentation is one I would call this the feasibility committee not the building committee or feasibility study committee not the building committee and two a few times in the presentation your language talked about guiding decisions around future choices and I think you should also be careful about that and speak with more precision about the fact that ultimately the deliverable of this report of this process is going to be a set of analytics and data modeling that's going to help our community make really better decisions about how we proceed with the future elementary school building on the site that's the point of it and so part of the reason why you go in my view part of the reason why you go through all the different options and present them part of the reason why you have the different approaches to energy you know HVAC or whatever energy generation on the site is because you want to provide as rich a set of feedback resources and analysis to the community to understand what the viability of different alternatives are and what the trade-offs are from them it's not actually so that the committee at some point between now and April can say well we want we want A and B and we don't want C through F or vice versa we want B and E and we don't want A and B that's not actually we're not going to do that can I talk about a different slide sure okay the possible energy targets for river there's some gardening stuff in there and there's some more numbers which I'm not sure that the point is going to come across the site and EUI and the source EUI and I don't think I think it's just drop this slide no I think there's some important stuff I just think to maybe make it so that the laborers the laborers can understand that and also you know there's these energy costs and again people are going to people belong on to specific numbers they're just like well if we do this 160,947 dollars you know per annum right so I just I'm dealing with engineers they like to calculate which is great but I'm not but I guess if this could be get the point across with something that's more easily understood what did this add to the point for me the important point is here that if you build a green building which we're obligated to do at a minimum your annual cost is estimated to be approximately can I for current or average cost if you don't want the numbers 50,000 dollars maybe as a percentage of average cost right at the bottom where it says green building represents a 51% reduction we could change it to 51% reduction is that that way you don't have to be not giving dollar value I'm not giving dollar value it's hard to it's hard for me to I don't know what we're actually spending per year you know this slide doesn't tell me where we currently spending that the point how much you're spending to that I thought the two might feel something could be different the numbers it's not far from that average 116,000 it varies your year can't say exactly but it was over a hundred just something to get your feet on the ground I don't know what am I supposed to be taking out of this slide what are you supposed to take away from this slide right I feel like the one previous was important to explain why we have all the solar PVs that renewable energy is offsetting our energy demand when I get to this one I'm not sure this gives you a sense of benchmarking we never refer to it later I just don't mean to get all seriousness I look at it and I say to myself hey I'd like zero that's what the talent has to be we don't have any other options none of these are options because we have to meet the net zero whether they are or not I'm looking at this and I'm like so my energy cost could be zero or $116,000 a year I'll take zero because the real point would be how do you achieve that what are the costs trade off there are other questions you'd ask around I find it more impactful to see the 3D views with the fields of PV that told me something about okay I now get what it means to get to net zero in a graphic way that and also I think rather than this slide what you didn't really speak to on the slides that showed fewer PV and less of a whole cell renovation or reconstruction of the site you said that the current building portions are exempt from the net zero law but then what we didn't hear is we didn't hear okay so what's the impact then on the energy efficiency of that space right and like to me that's almost a more important point to me than this well it would be relating the different options to okay which of a through E which one of them is most like the high performance of this slide kind of where does it fit in it probably for the purposes of this specific presentation it may be TMI all together yeah I'm meaning that oh I think it is to me the importance of it the importance of this on a couple other slides where you go into the weeds in my view is not that you'd actually want to discuss that level of information with the committee in the public it's more a matter of saying hey look this is the level of homework we've done so that when we spit out deliverables later that are analyzing what we think the costs are going to be we're not just coming up with numbers out of the back of a book it's based on a real honest to God analysis and this shows you that we're doing our homework to me that's the then they insult you by the way by saying that I'm sure you want to share all the details of your learning yes I do but then you get too much information that irrelevant for the purpose of that meeting I think also that one of the details of all the options I think it's too much detail I think you can't mention that we are looking at that range or maybe at the end but I think the committee is going to be more interested in looking at the last part of the presentation that at the beginning there's going to be a lot more interest because we've seen all the difference we have all the designs we know what they're talking about people are going to be more interested in these and I think people are assuming that we are looking into all these other things yes we have to bring it but I think we have to make an emphasis on all the options that we are looking at the designs and what to do I second the notion of highlighting the inefficiencies of some of the other models though because our building is highly inefficient right now so if we continue to use the existing building to a large percentage we're going to remain completely inefficient for the years to come we'll improve its efficiency through the renovation so I mean that could be a use for this slide that we were just about to jesson is that we could say that while a renovation project would be green building or high performance wherever we end up it would be improved whereas the new construction would be in net zero if those figures that we're talking about shouldn't go on that slide that would the photovoltaic diagram that says and there's a consequence that you would have zero annual net zero that's where you want to bring in that information that we had this during the fall I feel like it's the other place where you can talk about this a little bit is on your non-negotiable slide you don't talk about meeting current energy codes in there as a non-negotiable co-repair I could see you kind of having part of it being this co-repair addresses this and in addition to co-repair all the rest of them address this so accessibility would be something that's not mentioned down here which is also a non-negotiable would be included in F and then bringing the whole building up to energy code which is true so that's another place to kind of egress code right now in the building that's another like safety consideration like getting kids to fire exits is a problem right now so that's another non-negotiable that needs to be added to that list kind of in a overall comment is we might want to clarify how much detail they want them to be focusing on at this point because again the point of this presentation is not for them to look deeply at the site plan and say I really think that that room needs to go over here or maybe to just set it up and say at what level are we talking right now about these plans and about the options and again simplifying language what you were saying about the different HVAC options get rid of any jargon get rid of you know people understand like geothermal or air sourcing pumps or something I think just put it in those kind of it's just to say we're looking at six mechanical system options well no I think it would be I think a little more detail than that not just to make it clear to people like okay are folks aware that at Fort River we currently have its gas that's our energy source right so the other potential would be to use geothermal air sourced heat pump you know it turns that people can understand when they're thinking this is how I heat my house how are they planning on heating the building the jargon of KBT Hooper square foot for years just beyond what's people's understanding so what we can try to do is incorporate that language in more generic terms in more plain speaking at this point I think I have to leave timekeeper Diane has to go thank you all in favor bye