 Today is February 6th, this is the Fort River School Building Committee, and we're meeting at the Immersed Police Station community room, and this is being taped by Immersed Media. I will call us to order, and then the first item on our agenda is to review meeting minutes. I had a once direction that I submitted to Allison this afternoon. Item 4C, I think, conflated two different items, combined to test it for stormwater and geotechnical connectivity evaluation. So those were two different items. I wasn't there, but were there any attachments that needed to be added to them? I think the presentation. We didn't have the PDF. Yes, that's true. We have not gotten the PDF, so we will request that you send us the PDF of the last items. Sorry about that. I will. Can I attach the public comments to the end of the minute? I don't know if that was the way to do it. Having the presentation attached to the minutes makes reading the minutes way more understandable. So, I guess what I might ask is that we can have approval on the text as corrected, and then bundle them together with the corrections before they get posted. Move to accept the minutes of the previous meeting as amended. Second. All paired. Next item is you might volunteer to take this week's meeting. Thank you. Now we can move on to public comments. Do we have any public comments? Mr. Riddle, would you like to make public comments? Yes. Chris Riddle from Strong Street. I'm basically my comment has to do with the silence that has been received back from this committee with regard to my comments and suggestions the last couple of meetings. You don't have to comment on the public comment, obviously. But I think there's content there that I would, as a member of the public, like to hear some kind of reaction to at least on the part of this committee. We're talking about serious stuff here. This is climate change and something that we should not just give lip service to. I'm saying that's my comment. The next item we will get dragged into next week's event. Right. So, what we've done is given you a handout of the PowerPoint unless it has tweaked it this evening, which we would like to walk you through. There's a lot of material here. So we may decide to pull some of it. There may be too much or maybe too little or maybe the focus. We may need to adjust the focus because this is a public outreach. We want to introduce this project to members of the public. Some of whom we've seen before in meetings and they're so much familiar with it. But then there are some people who may not be familiar with it at all. So we need to make sure that we're communicating with those people, especially those who are not familiar with this at all. So we decided to put everything in we thought was relevant. But we need your direction on whether you think it's too much or too weighted on some of the areas. I was going to make a suggestion that, and I don't know if this makes sense, but when we go through it, we run through the presentation and that people make their comments on their notes. And then we go through and make comments so we don't get stuck on the slide as we're moving through it. And then we can hear it as a whole and hopefully get through it at the end of the meeting today. I was going to suggest that actually we keep going through the most of the presentation because we have seen 80% of the presentation which is the same as we saw at the school committee. So I don't think there's a point of going through that. Maybe focusing on what is missing and what is extra and understanding the last slide so that we make more effective use of the time. My only hesitation on that is I think it would be good to hear how long it takes because I think we want to kind of have a sense of how long that part of the presentation will be. There's 60 slides so it's going to be long enough. So then we won't have time to have much input. So since we've seen, I'm thinking like even at a life at least it should be on the same order. We can use the conversation but everything up to slide, we've seen everything except the last three slides. Do you have a target in terms of time and then question and answer time? I mean I'm very concerned that if we do this presentation tonight we're not going to get feedback. So one of the major complaints in the past has been really long presentations and not enough time for people to interact and have their questions answered. So I think my preference in my suggestion would be to be no more than half an hour if that. I think the way you're used to my experience you almost end up being more ruthless than that in your mind because I mean you may, I thought you guys did a wonderful job at the school committee so I'm not criticizing your presentation, that was great. But in my experience if you think you're going to talk for 20 minutes it ends up being 30. So if you think you're going to talk for 30 minutes then it'll end up being 40. We've noticed that too. It's not you, it's the universal principle of PowerPoint. Or honestly any kind of mistake, Allison? Well I could go back on my suggestion if we're not going to go through this slide by slide which is fine with me, that you know if people feel like they've gotten enough from looking at it in advance of the meeting we could just go through and start making comments. Yeah I want to figure out what the best process is until we get through it because what I found is that you know because we all have input that we'll end up spending a lot of time on you know one thing and then we don't have time to finish up. So anyway I'm fine not having the presentation just making comments, I just don't want us to get stuck on one page and then not get through it. Then I have a suggestion, why don't I tell you what the format is of the presentation and then hit the highlights in each section and then we can go back and focus on specific things that you think might be missing. So I'm going to go through it fairly quickly and not dwell on it too much and I'll time it and then we can talk about it. How's that sound? I'll go through the overall message in each section. Because in my mind there are seven sections in this and maybe we should actually have section titles in the actual presentation so people know where I am and they know how much is left. I think that's a very good idea. I'm concerned that thinking that it's going to take five minutes is going to be 40 minutes and then we won't have time to give inputs. I'm really concerned about... We can say it takes seven minutes. One minute per section. So the idea would be to give the overall idea of the section without the details of the slides. Second? Okay, one, two, three. Are you ready? I'm ready. Okay, start. Thank you very much. My name is Richard Sipek. I'm here this evening to present a PowerPoint presentation to give members of the public an opportunity to understand what we along with the feasibility committee have been working on and then I will open it up to questions and answers later. So my presentation is divided into seven sections. I would like to go through these sections and I ask your patience and then we'll get to Q1A. So the first section is really who is TSKP Studio. That's the first section. As I discussed during the school committee, we talk about the quality of our work, natural day lighting, multi-functional spaces, durable materials, connections to the outdoors, security and safety is a recurring theme in the school work that we've done. The second section is a reminder of the existing Fort River Elementary School. If you haven't been to the school, we encourage you to come visit. You'll see the existing conditions summary on slide 11. A reminder of the existing conditions in terms of layout, the open classrooms. It's a 1970s vintage school, the open classroom photographs that you see, the circulation around the building, around classrooms. These light wells were conserved for day lighting. There are little value for other than some day lighting. That's the second section. The third section is how do we determine what the appropriate size of the building are? What we typically do is use the MSBA guidelines. That's certainly one benchmark for sizing the project and it's a function of how many pupils are in the school. So if you look at slide 16, that's a brief summary of the range of populations that we talked about with the feasibility committee for the school. We chose to look at the population of 420, Y420. We looked at three classes per grade. Three classes per grade is how we derive the number of 420 using district guidelines for population of the classroom. The classroom count of three per grade allows us to have two classes devoted to a dual language program, should you go in that direction, leaving one in a non-dual language function. So if we look at the space requirements for those numbers of classrooms, we come up with a total of 84,000 square feet. According to MSBA guidelines, it should be 72,000 square feet. However, Fort River has some additional characteristics such as the classroom guidelines for the district. It also has district-wide special ed programs, which are unique, and then we have the pre-K program, which could be inserted here. So that's what bumps the guideline up to about 85,000 square feet. And then I'll talk about the effort that was taken to develop a classroom list and that's how we derive how the size of the building is determined. The next section, or the fourth section, is concerning sustainable features in the school. There was quite a discussion about the city, as well as members of the school committee and as well as members of the public that we've gotten some feedback on that. Sustainable features are an important factor in the planning of the school. And I'll talk about what that is, how MSBA actually gives you an additional 2% reimbursement if you can exceed the energy code by at least 20%. I'll talk a little bit about what, how energy is measured in schools these days. How engineers use the term KB2 per square foot per year and all that's going on. That means by explaining how the KB2 per square foot per year has been cut in half since 1975-ish. And we can only see that dropping very low going forward. So what's the appropriate goal? We'll talk later in the presentation about 30 KB2 or an EUI of 30 and a EUI of 50 and what that means. The next section of the presentation are the options, the design options. We looked at, I will remind everyone that we were hired to study a range of options. And so I'll explain that. There's a total of seven options. I'm sorry, six options that we looked at. A through F and they range depending upon how much new construction is incorporated into the option. I'll mention the net zero bylaw in Amherst and how that's required for new construction. It's not applicable to renovation work. And I'll mention the non-negotiable factors, how the community has come up with this list. I can't remember whether it was a community or someone else. But anyway, the non-negotiable items are something that we looked at to make sure that the schools, no matter which option that we chose, were something that could be achieved. And then we have some schematics that illustrate each of the options starting with A. The photovoltaic array in A. And then the floor plan. And I'll just briefly mention the configuration of the floor plan. And you'll see the clusters of three classrooms. I mentioned three classrooms for grade. I'll highlight those. And then option B, it's 50% new. And I'll say that the floor plans are available for further detail work. The detail explanation should anyone in the public want to see that. But if you were to take the time to examine the floor plan should see that there's natural light in every room. Everybody has optimal windows. And that's something that we're improving on the existing building, which is currently unacceptable. And so I'll go through all of these options quickly. I'll explain that option F is the option that does not achieve everything that the committee had hoped to achieve. But we wanted to show the full range of possibilities. The next section is cost. How do we determine cost? There are several factors that contribute to cost. And I'll briefly talk about what those factors are. Such as construction duration. So you'll see on slide 48 there are various ranges of duration. From 22 months to 36 months depending on which option that you use. That's directly related to cost. Another is the bylaw pertaining to net zero. And how we achieve net zero is another factor that contributes to cost. Because that affects construction, assembly. It also affects the extent of photovoltaics, for example. Another factor that contributes to cost is the mechanical systems. I'll explain that there are a number of mechanical systems we looked at. And the base number that you'll see later for cost is based upon option number six. Because that's what was recommended by facilities people because of the simplest maintenance. Another cost factor is the way you construct the building. What do you do it through the CN method or the GC method? We know historically that if you know with the GC method and this is based on data from MSBA it's typically 90% of the CN method. The CN method is a little bit more expensive. But in the past MSBA has increased the grant for the CN method. I'm not sure that they will continue that policy but that's what they have done in the past. The next two charts show the construction cost. What we did is selected the 465 population in each of these scenarios. And we look at that mechanical system number six that I mentioned earlier. And so you see in terms of millions of dollars construction cost that's highlighted in yellow on the next chart is the total project cost which is construction plus falls off cost including furniture and equipment. And so there you'll see in yellow boxes the total project cost. How does that compare to other projects? If you look at page 55 you'll see that we have a Fort River column. We have a Wildwood Elementary School which you experienced a couple of years ago and then we have another project that was done in Massachusetts. If we were to factor, adjust the costs based upon taking the photovoltaics out because not all of them have photovoltaics we looked at Wildwood and projected that figure forward to 2020 dollars. And we looked at the Maple Elementary School. You can see that the range is pretty close except that Wildwood was less and I believe Wildwood is less because the square footage is so high and Wildwood is a much bigger building so it's a greater efficiency or the cost per square foot turns out to be less. So the last section which is new information we have some case studies. What we did is we tried to explain a little bit more in detail three case studies out of those options. The first was case study A that talks about energy and useful capacity, HVAC, carbon emissions which is something that's been discussed by the feasibility committee. What method of construction and what the resulting cost would be. And I do a similar thing for case study for option C and case study for option E. So you see the full range on the last page you see the full range on the bottom. You can see the project cost range from $48 to $58 million depending upon which option you use. 11 minutes. I think I do like the idea that that seven sections is kind of a way of putting everything in some context. Are we all making specific feedback? I think so. So I wonder about the amount of detail on each configuration. First because I wonder about just kind of throwing it up on the screen. Are we going to have printouts of the configuration for the audience? Because I'm afraid what you're going to end up with is when it comes to you and I go back to that slide and I think right at this slide it might be good to have that in front of you rather than these individual rooms are barely going to read on the screen. And I also wonder given the direction that we now know the schools are going in as far as building plans how useful it is to talk about these specific designs right now. You're talking about the design options section? Yeah. We're not building this school realistically. I had a similar comment that this is a really dense presentation and I feel like that section I didn't know we were going to go through every single option and it feels like we should maybe pick a couple of options to go through or in some way make it so that it's not so confusing. I was imagining myself being a member of the public and looking at six different floor plans site plans I just feel like we'll lose the crowd in that part of the presentation. I saw Hans I agree that we need to limit the discussion there but for absolutely not that reason I think that we must be very careful that what we're doing is presenting our work there is no decision and I think that it would be a real mistake for us to go down that path. We're presenting the work of our committee. I think that we do need to simplify I think we need to take a lot out and if we're going to go through step by step I know I'm happy to do that but I think the big thing we were tasked to do is to answer is this site buildable and the answer is yes and I think we have to have something that just says that that has to be up front. Number two is what are the possibilities and we were tasked to find those possibilities with a certain enrollment and we've done that and I think we need to emphasize that they span the range as you mentioned but that's the nuts and bolts of what we have to convey. There's a site buildable and how is it going to be? Yeah and what are the options? What are the options? Given that we were tasked with developing options for a specific enrollment and that's what we did and we're showing that work and we're saying this is what it would look like. These are different ways that you can approach that problem and with there's a variety and they have I think that's a good point and probably we should start out with that. That was good so I know Heather had a hand up but maybe I could quickly interject. I think before you start your piece it's probably prudent for probably me as the chair to just give the general public which we all kind of know what our charge was but some of the people who are going to be in that room will not know our charge and I think it's probably important for me to give even if it's two minutes or five minutes of context of what our charge is what our limits are and when we are meeting as a committee to just to put the whole thing in brackets if that makes sense to folks. I would like to see it as a slide on the board. Maybe if you're talking to another because I have done this for the I did this for the the PGO thing I had a context slide or two so I could probably either have my own little show or just send it to you and have it inserted at the beginning. So I'm going to follow up on that comment so I would say when you're saying the task I would say the other things that we've been doing because here we don't talk about the environmental study true yes because that ties up with the renovation with the geotechnical with the environmental study. I think we should have two slides with the main results of both studies because this is something that this committee has done and I think we know that happened. We did a whole lot of work between October and November of 17 at the time that came on. So I think those two have to be added to the presentation. We also have two more slides and we have to be ready because somebody's going to ask questions about the site and things. I just wanted to add on with the site that we also got a comment from the public about the first thing people say to me when I tell them on this committee they want to build a school on a swamp or in a flood plain and I think it's really important. Exactly. But the point is I think if this is a feasibility study and one of our main charges was to figure out if the site is buildable I definitely think we need a slide that explains if we do think that this is not that issue that why it's not. I'm very cautious about using more buildable I mean obviously buildable because there's a building there. So the question is what are the consequences of building on this site as opposed to a different site and we have confirmed that we have a very high water table so how do we quantify that to the public about how that affects the costs and usability of the site and we're going to get to the technical report on the agenda later tonight and so maybe that's the better time to talk about how that translates into a slide here but I really you know, is it buildable if not is it buildable, is it buildable at what expense or what, because we could put a classroom in space if we wanted to. Our goal is to present costs that include those costs so if they're not already rolled in here I think it's pretty close after we've gotten the report and started to work with it that these costs would represent the geotechnical costs that are required. And you're contextualizing that for the public like is this extraordinary. We have a sense of what it would be at this point. I think that I don't actually think the point unless you'd found something that said it was absolutely impossible to build on the site I think that kind of binary discussion doesn't really illuminate the public's understanding of the site I think the entire point of the study was to try to learn and educate and inform the public's understanding of the forever site and what potential options or range of options could potentially be built and under what circumstances or at what cost. To me, I remember an old environmental engineering professor of mine made the comment that you wouldn't abuse the term of art of a buildable lot or buildable site because within environmental right appropriate environmental and permitting regulations like if you have enough money almost anything is feasible. The question is, is it end up being wise to do and I'm not saying that I have to be flippant. What I'm saying is we're putting forward six different options any one of which could conceivably be done they're different tradeoffs to them and to me if we're focusing on a binary, I think the observation that the site is buildable is a perfectly good one to make I wouldn't want that to be like a full stop point because I think it doesn't add to public understanding at all to me the point about this is to describe the purpose of this feasibility study as to illuminate public understanding about the different conceptual options that are possible to do here and under what circumstances and what cost and with what tradeoffs and to me that's the point of doing this that's one of the reasons why I thought the comment that was made earlier that we should skinny down how much detail we go through the different options makes sense because there's still going to be a full report but if you're trying to get the public to understand what can I learn from this what's was done and what can I learn from this it's just to me from that perspective being able to essentially model what the approach was to do construction of partial addition and then to the base case or something like that whatever it is whether it's an ERF is more to the point I guess since I'm on school committee I'll go back to a comment that was made earlier I don't actually think that the work of this group needs to be overly concerned with the other conversation that's going on around MSBA as I view those as two totally separate conversations and I actually think done appropriately and well the product of this group is still going to deeply inform whatever happens out of another process and I think it can and I think it should right so number one I want to caution all of us that we shouldn't be making pronouncements about anything that we haven't talked about yet so when we're talking about the geotechnical we haven't talked about that as a group so I think when we say things like high water table that is not something that we have gotten to and we need to talk about that as a group I think it's important I disagree with you Eric in terms of saying look we all know that there is a narrative out there about what can happen on this site and we all know that that is not a very sophisticated conversation so I think what we need to do is to hear from the consultants that we've hired and see how would you answer the question when somebody asks is this site buildable I would say well you may recall that we thought it would be wise to get a geotechnical report done because we knew that this was in a river bank area we knew that there could be a challenge especially if you go to a multi story building you may recall that I said early on that you know that geotechnical report will tell us whether or not we should be budgeting for piles for example in order to support a multi-story building which we have done in river bank situations and it's certainly doable the geotechnical report that we got shows that piles are not necessary that there is another technique that we could use which is basically driving stones into the ground to stabilize the soil and then build the foundation on that should you go to a two-story option if you don't go to a two-story option conventional stretch footings would be fine no basement in any of the scenarios that we're talking about so you don't have to worry about keeping water out of basements so I'm confident that this is buildable and those are the techniques that we would undertake to build the building we've also had we've verified the site drainage areas that we had assumed and we feel those assumptions were accurate to the results of the report so we don't need to change our our estimate with regard to drainage assumptions I hope we present that synopsis there on the geotech that's really important information whatever buildings go there, this project or something else it's open if a school building doesn't go here it's town owned open land and it will be looked at yeah that would be important to say that what I just said and present that verbally I could also make reference to a geotechnical report that was delivered to this committee that could be made available should someone want to see it yeah, good yeah, but see I like that my entire point is I'm not trying to pick an argument but earlier you'd made the conclusion that we now know the site's buildable and that should be set up front what I was trying to say was that I'm actually less interested in conclusory statements like this can happen, this can happen I'm actually more interested in discussions of what have we learned about the site condition I don't mind the conclusion that it's buildable I don't think that's particularly illuminating absent the additional context you provided about we did this analysis we were concerned about these potential conditions here's what we learned from it and here's what we think we would need to be done to prep the site to make it buildable to me that's something that the public then gets an understanding out of it that's really helpful and really useful that's again not a binary or conclusory thing it's actually helping to inform public understanding and that was the point I was making about the different scenarios I think it's more useful to spend time describing what you've learned around how we'd approach this feasibility and then even just looking at the bottom line numbers because in the end the difference between 48 million and 59 million can swim in someone's head understanding what you're actually talking about about the buildings under different scenarios is to me more illuminating my opinion anyways I think it would be really helpful for the public to understand how the water conditions at this site did inform the estimate because I think that's people will probably ask this question because how do you quantify what is different about the site given what we know about the site and one of those things is the water and I'm trying to think of anything else that you would say is extraordinary about the site, the size of it you don't have a lot of rock sometimes we're on interlock our assumptions about the site are basically built in to the estimate already so I'm going to verify with the geotechnical with the detail being the ground improvement strategy that the geotechnical engineer recommended in lieu of piles that we had for the historic building and then along with that like what could happen with the existing structure would you recommend adding extra drainage around the building given what we know that you know we have had complaints about mold in that building and stories about people picking up boxes and problems falling out because there's water seeping up through the slab you know these are concerns that we've heard about for years and years and in a renovation project I don't think many people would be satisfied with relieving things as they are and is there anything that can be done or that has been included in our estimates to address that concern in order to improve the existing slab the hydrostatic pressure actually coming up through the slab you'd have to tear out the entire slab and do a proper vapor proof barrier and there's no strategies for trying to put like a French drain to try and suppress the water table underneath so put huge drainage things all the way around you would also probably have to put pumps just to make sure that you are dewatering that hydrostatic that is not something that we've included in our thoughts about the renovation in order we believe it to be required based on the geotechnical report so I guess the question is are those stories I don't know the validity of the stories we do geotechnical investigation at a certain time of year and we're going to base our understanding on that so I have two hands I think your hands were up first so I have a couple of comments I think you should have a slide with the comments you made about the construction assumptions based on the geotechnical definition where? for two story buildings we need these for one story building but say it's based on the geotechnical I'm concerned whether the comment that you said what's the increase based on what you learned about the soil in every building that you're going to be building in every terrain that you're going to be building you don't know what's in there so if they decided to go to San Diego then you have to think another thing so saying just because we're building proposing something for river there's a slow land then it has to be worse than other parts of town for me that's a huge assumption and I'm just trying to figure out how do we talk about this issue yeah I don't think she's saying just that I think that everyone has that perception we need to address it but I think the slide that he was saying so that geotechnical we find these and it has been taken into account in the cost that's it I don't think we have to start going beyond unless somebody else I don't think we have to start I think Jesse answered the question yeah that's there's nothing extraordinary this is what has been planned and what we are producing and the cost estimates that we are giving would address the issues that this site requires just as it would for any other project and I think we have we need to stop talking about this as an extraordinary site right the fact is that the committee has done this in a very responsible way we have advised you on certain consultants that you need to bring in to do some investigative work you don't approach these kinds of projects blind you try to get the proper information then you budget for it there's nothing unusual about this site I appreciate you helping us prepare by raising those subjects because I think we're going to get asked but I just want to say I feel like we've added a couple of slides that I think we have to take that one because we have to try to make use of the discussion that was my comment can I make one comment I think one thing that you have to be aware this is a general presentation the middle school screen is kind of awkward I think it's quite square and it's behind us stage just to be clear where we're going to be presenting so I think you have to be big and bold and large fonts so many of these slides is just forgetting you cannot really so it's not a projector no no it's a projector but you're projecting against a traditional pull down screen it's not backlit so it's bigger it's bigger but there's also it's a bigger space when you sit in the front of the auditorium does it have the same feel because I'm not anticipating we're going to have people in the rafters so I'm wondering no but it has the same feeling I remember from that meeting people complaining whenever there was things being typed that's my question where were they sitting they were sitting quite in the front of course it depends on your type but I think I saw several of these slides that just forget it there's no point of having this font I don't think that was a general comment it has to be big and bold because it's not this definition I think although I agree with we have to remind people of our charge I think we have to address the elephant in the room of this other conversation going on that will make some people feel like why are we even here talking about this so I'm going to jump way ahead in the agenda maybe that I think there should be a little subcommittee of territory people to craft your comments as the chair that both discusses our charge and also describes how we learn valuable lessons applicable to any school discussion process in this town we learned about the site, we learned about methodology of comparing options and we I think started to tease out some of the variables about working under the zero energy bylaw and the factors to consider and I think all of those lessons might be good to explain because I heard at a town council meeting one of the councilors saying was it just a waste of money I agree with that I agree with that and I've had a number of conversations about this subject with people of different levels of when I say education I mean they followed this either closely or not that closely these different conversations and I I strongly believe that there's absolutely nothing about that other conversation that has any bearing on the value of the work of this this study in this report I think it's still very valuable and actually the other day I explained to somebody that there was already significant amounts of work whether it needs to be updated or not on Wildwood as a location we didn't have sort of an equal body of information about Fort River I'd also point out I don't know why this seems to be I mean I almost feel like there's a weird directionality to the way we talk about that other conversation that it must be talking about Wildwood I mean who says a future even if that other conversation were successful in some way who says the new building wouldn't be at Fort River right? I literally don't know what it wouldn't be my point being as I agree with you I'm having something at the beginning of it but I'll stop now because I know what you're doing with things but I'm just saying there really isn't any reason why this work isn't perfectly valuable it is I would like to second Rudy's suggestion that maybe you know people help form the message at the beginning that sort of addresses all the elephants and I don't know if we have to vote on that or if we can just one that well I've done a couple of short pre-embles and presentations talking about this kind of outside of our context here and I would probably start there drawing from my presentations to the school committee the one PGO exercise I've gone through we're kind of off the topic here so I'm going to try to wrap back around really quickly I would love some feedback on it that would be terrific the other thing that's going to come up later tonight provided we can keep on our task here is we have another several other opportunities to kind of talk about the work of the committee coming up one is Mike's Window on Arps and I've also been approached by the Maria and the League of Women Voters by Stan Rosenberg who also has a shell and largely those conversations are going to be about this pre-emble so I have to do something about this anyways rather quickly just to clarify that for the byline thing they ask for both you and I to be on that so they ask for a chair and a vice chair and that's going to be changed on they asked for two so I was excluded so this is happening on Friday so should the invitation be extended to Eric then or you guys could duke it out I know about this and no one invited me so as far as I know the decision has already been made without my input that I'm not desired so whatever I don't know what precipitated the invitation so we can come back to this topic a little later let's keep doing for on that one so back to cuts as much as I love seeing all the beautiful pictures of beautiful schools and knowing that you're qualified to do this I'm wondering if that can be a minute instead of five qualified regional yes pull a couple of the slides out like age appropriate scale, multi-functioning space those are pretty just a couple of those things they're inspiring but I don't I think especially for a feasibility study it seems a little you suggest streaming some of the I would do one slide of TKS if you were qualified because we're regional we've done a lot of projects but not in specifics of life salivating about it if we go by sections cutting I would say in the existing conditions I would have maybe the last one make it more concise one slide for the pictures one slide for the pictures one slide if you want the blueprint the layout the summary so instead of this picture of the summary maybe put some kind of classrooms and then we cut a couple of slides there so cut the list no leave the list but change the picture maybe the picture doesn't add much and then combine the following two slides and then the other two combine again in one so you can combine both four in one reduce to two slides yes sir this is where we'll add to your technical existing conditions talk about that I think it's going to go I don't know if you should put it have it to the end or have it later because I think it's going to it's not because kind of post office it bears on the existing conditions I think it's part of this we could show an aerial photograph of the site and we could indicate where the borings were taken and say that we know the site we're studying the site geotechnical workers have done in these areas did you want to add the environmental study about that yeah I think I can put that in the preamble talk about the work the committee did before we design around the work I have a question about slide 16 which is in the educational space under pre-k enrollment it says FTE after that is that because for me FTE means something it's because the pre-k students are part of A so it's a full-time equivalent student so it's actually two kids the first half of the day and second half of the day equals one FTE I think people are going to get confused with the world of this digit I think we only have two morning preschools Heather get off subject the pre-k maybe think about in your preamble one thing to talk about is sort of like this is very much a facility study and not a programming study so things like the pre-k beyond the purview of the committee to figure out if it's feasible to actually have a second preschool program just to support so we explored if we could have facilities on this site but we did not explore all the agencies of developing a second preschool program in our district and we explored them I think I can frame the discussion of what our charge was in a way that's distinct because we can take off from the charge it was pre-k seats in this site different options that was our charge but I don't want people to think because we've shown it here that it's a it's a feasibility study a feasibility study about whether we can afford pre-school programming that was the biggest discussion with the school committee but we haven't done a feasibility study about any educational programming nothing that our committee nothing that our committee has done has done anything about dual language or anything that's happening on this site it's only a building situation we were charged with repeating what was existing at Fort River we have with the expansion of the because they have explored whether dual language is feasible for our district because we're starting it in the fall but we we have been asked to do enrollment numbers those numbers range from 315 to 465 and that's I feel comfortable that I can craft a concise a couple of slides at the beginning and ultimately if people have questions it's going to come up in the question period and we can get into further depth if people have questions about it no we didn't, that was beyond our charge or that was in our charge I think somebody or more than one person said earlier this is an analysis of buildings and facilities I think that's the point to emphasize that's the point to emphasize because I think if you focus on that then then you you're hammering right nails it's conceptualizing the feasibility of adding a preschool onto some building redesign or rebuild or Fort River and that's what it is well feasibility goes to building size because that's what you need to study and what drives building size is population right so this worst case scenario looked at up to 465 people potentially included should you go there more kind of stuff really on the cost factor I feel like this over emphasize the energy impact and a couple of handy HVAC system impact in this regard on slides 48 49 can I get to that it seems to me the big cost drivers are the size of the building the non-negotiable such as open classrooms and so on because and we can tell that from the jump from 28,000 28 million in the F option to all the other options so I think we need some kind of reminder that the main cost factor driving the size of this is not these other issues but the fact we want to have room for special education regional special education there open classroom and so forth and that drives us towards something much more extensive than option F largely agree and if somebody in the audience has a specific question about UI30 vs UI50 or why you would go with Cooled VRF vs Watercooled VRF then we can talk about it but I don't know that I necessarily want to guide the audience to worry about these items sorry did we hear a suggestion to simplify this to take some taste out or just kind of drop the slide we could simply say things like we explored multiple approaches I think it's unavoidable that people are going to want to know about net zero and how that affected the cost and the discussion so I don't think you can eliminate that you can probably cover the cost factor of the phasing just by verbal comment and maybe summarize the things that drove the high cost to this project from option F once we get into all the other options that are non-negotiables and bullet point out I think we have some of those maybe you combine the non-negotiables with a discussion of what are the one of the major drivers of the cost of this new or renovated facility is all these things we want to achieve with this building and they're expensive that doesn't make them wrong at all but they are expensive to do no designers about what to change but I understand what you're saying I think one way to address this when you make presentations you leave things out on purpose that are going to be us and we call this slide maybe yeah slide in the back so I think this might be one of the cases when you have this slide and what's this vacation and you are 30 you look at all these things maybe we should this slide should be part of this slide but all the details on a secondary slide because we know about you are 50 and you are 30 but most people would not know it hasn't been defined Richard would have to do that verbally as he's going through it so my question was whether going back to the beginning of the presentation sustainable I think this section should be more this is more on the guidelines of MSPA presentations and not as much on the net seer bylaw I think in this part there's not except here is the net seer bylaw I think it has to be more very forced that part and maybe introduce you are 50 and you are 30 at this stage I think that could work I could understand that because I think we want to say yes it's great that it's sustainable we are aiming to satisfy the MSPA but actually we have to be constrained where the net seer bylaw is MSPA is here ours is here so we are aiming this we want to talk about sustainability as a more holistic goal because it hits other things at the end as you noticed but we could augment that conversation now that we've thought a little more about different energy targets and the potential costs on the project we could kind of set that up there and not have to come back to it later I think that could work I think we need to I think we need to streamline things so picking up on what we said I think is important there is a sudden jump so we have two slides that show this range of options that we talked about we should drop the one that just talks about construction costs just take that one out we really should only talk about slide the next slide that has total project costs because that's really the bottom line the total project including soft cost which makes going down that's a good question so after 53 so we have 53 that has construction costs and then after that slide we have total project costs and we really pointed out that we have 28 million dollars for option F which is just a band data push and then if you factor in all of the other things like partitioning classrooms to make them discreet classrooms that are acoustically separate you include the net zero factor there's a big jump there's a big jump so a couple of things one it seemed to me in your design options non-negotiables that go from A to E that's where you're describing not in detail obviously but that's where you're hitting on a number of the design elements including the compliance of the net zero bylaw that I don't like the idea of saying driving costs because the entire point is we're trying to build a building or redesign a building that meets our needs so it's going to cost whatever it costs if it meets our needs with a spectrum of options that's why F doesn't really obtain to me because F as you say yourself F doesn't actually meet the goals set under the non-negotiables so it's not really the point of comparison the point of comparison is A through A but what I was going to get at is that on the when we get later to the discussion of sustainable or net zero factors I don't know if I'm this isn't the issue just let me know to me it's where you emphasize that the path to net zero on 49 is a cost factor per se is it sort of highlighting the notion of hey this is part of what was bothering you but it's like hey this is what's costing more by calling it cost factor whereas to me I'd go back to what we were talking about earlier not that it doesn't cost something but it goes back to what I was saying earlier around like this buildability of the site I think it's fine if you say it's buildable I think it's much more interesting if you describe what it would take to build with one story or two story and what we learn from geotechnical that to me is informative with the public here I don't think the most important point about slide 49 is the cost factor I think it's really go underneath it you took the time to answer a question this committee asked which was hey what are the different things it might take to achieve different energy efficiency targets for the site and you started listing them well that again is something that helps to inform the public of what would it mean for us to try to match this goal under different building scenarios so my point is I'd de-emphasize the cost element of the slide and I'd emphasize the hey what did we learn or what do we think based on your professional judgment would be needed under different scenarios 8 through 8 to reach different energy efficiency targets ok so we can make sense to you it does make sense and we can improve the slide going to what I mean I said about the font that would be completely legible the only relevant parts really I think the important parts that we should highlight is on the left side of this chart where we have targeting EUI 50 targeting EUI 30 we increase the font we put them side by side and we say this is what life in this building would be like you know you'd have triple glazing or we would have reduced the winter temperature inside the building I mean that's what it would be it's informing the public about what you think about this chart I want to jump back to where you first talk about sustainability some of the slides there and maybe that will help with this just to while you've got 50 or 49 out it's really busy and maybe to simplify this and say more insulation you know higher temperatures lower humidity you know just like I don't think we need this level of detail it's in your back pocket so people are like if you want to know which of our factors then bring it up but I think bringing that down to a kind of a bigger level picture if you go back to 1920 so I think we can probably ditch 19 but for 20 so that's referring specifically back to the MSBA and I think this could be a helpful slide in terms of understanding also some of the numbers so pointing out is this 20 so it's the minimum requirements for funding and then talking about the 2% additional reimbursement so I think it would be really good to say does our project meet that or do some of our options meet that and some not meet that and you might want to this is where you could talk about if so how much of the cost of net zero is actually do we see some return for that 2% what is 2% is that 2% the total project cost and that's this much money and by the way that's $1 million and this thing cost $2 million you've already gotten half that you know I think you don't want to get into those details but I think this slide people won't know what that means unless they get some sense of like well did we do it and what kind of money are we talking about you know so this slide should potentially go after we talked about costs so we maybe that's the point and to say you cost something but you get something for it is there a slide about like energy cost it can be the difference case studies there's an operating and Mike I had a question about that guy because it was zero energy cost utility cost that's $150,000 I was remembering somebody commenting on when we sell electricity to the grid you ended up paying exactly 30% higher so that if we're targeting does anyone remember this I think Chris made the point that we have to buy the electricity at a rate that we're not going to get the seller back I haven't gone back and we're targeting our solar panels to provide enough energy so we're actually targeting zero energy use net over the year or producing as much but we're not targeting zero dollars right I have a question based on our research specifically that we're getting an equivalent return on our full retail energy that goes back into the grid so it would just be to fix customer charges systems benefit and demand charges and energy efficiency which I'm unable to estimate I don't know what those would be so I put them in parentheses the public will probably have a hard time because it's a lot of information but you looked at that yeah that's where we ended up in our research so far so if Chris you know something else we can talk after the meeting can I just jump on a related point a zero kilogram emission that even if we're buying it at the same rate I'm not sure that the grid in the production of the electricity used is going to be zero if we're buying in power if we take power from the grid it's going to have an emission but we're net zero so we're putting energy back into the grid how do you want to consider that I guess so you're also putting green energy into the grid you're net zero so it's effectively equivalent it's very easy to put zero it's very hard to figure out that part that you're buying you're going to export it as two chapters on that point alright well and some of this am I oversimplifying too much no and there's some things we're going to some things we're not going to get fully resolved for the public meeting that we're going to have to sort through and I know Mr. Riddle's frustration some of these things we're going to have to figure out before the final report and that's going to require us more talking and so I don't think this is unimportant but I don't know that we can fully resolve it before we speak we'll sometimes when in doubt leave something out and come back to it in the report putting it in a public slide there's any uncertainty about it we don't want to present something uncertain so that's my path I just wanted to go back to getting the slides can we ditch this one yeah and I think the next one is important because it does explain the number oh sorry this member 21 is one to go away the number 22 I think probably is useful 22 is useful I think that helps me out I don't know if we're ready to move on I don't know okay this is like Diana I haven't talked about it yet okay should we move that? okay charge forward okay so when we're on the range of options so number 24 so this is where it's like the big picture of we looked at six different things so I would like I would say put that bigger so it says new building two-story edition one-story edition just make that bigger ABCDEF and how much new and we're going to get to the phasing later so I think that's just clutter on this stage it's just like this is their first glance of what we did and that gets slotted back in there's one there's another slide later that talks about phasing so we like this slide just bigger text under the picture yeah and then don't mention phasing I forgot we had those little we can phase it first thing about super phasing that's a unit by phasing you know what's funny I kept looking for the months and I'm like I don't see months here sorry there's one with months we can do that in the next one have I mentioned I think this is a very important slide it's not negotiable so maybe 25 I don't think we need the nice picture yes it makes it nicer but I think I'm sorry about the text size text size so this might give you some more space so the people I don't know how it works I'm going to advocate as another architect in the room to have some pictures in here just text it can become deadly maybe two slides maybe two slides and maybe they have to be we should figure out whether they can be which one will be the most sustainability design maybe I like the list on the slide multiple slides just to write it out so what we can do is increase the font to reformat this slide great there's a trick that if you put all the small text together then the picture can fit up there that's a horse I've been beating on this is that you've said that f doesn't leave this correct f just make that clear it says a through e a through e is silent about f I could put not f ready so is this where we add that cost driver or we're not going to talk about that here the fact that these elements are what push f up into the a to e price range I would encourage that to be part of the verbal discussion because I think that's hard to parse out this is me personally talking to parse out in a slide but where are you at I think maybe the way that you'd say it is look f is required in the MSBA a code upgrade option is always required and it's required as a comparator and they know full well that it may or may not meet the educational requirements that you're doing but they want you to include it yes they do and so I think that when maybe we get to cost we say that look this does not need the requirements but we got included it's a comparator and this is what you could take this building and do and I think there's a list we might want to simplify the list a little bit but that would get that building you know for this amount of money to that code upgrade I think that's probably where you do it okay and then the rest what we want what else we want from building that's going to be sorry that's going to be more that's more than a code upgrade there you want to say I just was saying I I'm sure you'll find the artful way of phrasing it I just I strongly disagree that meeting the educational program needs to be set for our community or for this site conceptually those aren't cost drivers it's just literally what it costs anyways I'm just I don't beat a dead horse on that I'm just saying yes they all do make it more expensive but the entire point is the task we set for ourselves was not to build F it was to build A3 conceptually and what Maria said is important because we modeled this study on MSBA expectations so F is included strictly because MSBA will ask you what's it going to cost to fix this building and bring it up to code and they ask that even though that's not something you want to pursue they want a way to compare I agree with that I can just grab the intersect alright let's go and I'm going to play a little time paper we were at almost quarter after and well I don't think we can get through everything on our agenda tonight I didn't think we could I do want to make sure we leave at least 20 minutes to talk about other company events so now we're hitting on the slides that have been suggested earlier that we consider either eliminating wholesale or picking a couple of options to highlight so going through every single option with site plan and plans hi I would say to keep it but maybe simplify so this one I don't think that's too much I think people are going to understand much more something like this than this one this one have it if somebody wants to look at the details but these are the ones that people can understand what does it imply to have a two star building then to have one star building I just completely agree keep this get rid of all of these all of these and what about what about the floor plan I think those ones I think you have to have floor plan but you don't have to talk do we need to have both the floor plan you know this kind of color diagram of what's going and what's staying or can we just have the floor plan I don't understand really one person to talk this was the most helpful thing maybe that's the better solution I don't know maybe you don't need where all the rooms are nobody's going to be able to read it anyway yes have it quite true so have this one like what maybe say okay the educational you can describe it but you have it I completely agree should have that one and then the front one you were pointing to and the other reason I point is that it's wonderful for the public to know that you've blocked out or every single function in the building goes but this is the world's worst meeting we've ever been in if we have people wanting to look at where different things are and argue about it especially since we're going to try like heck to remind folks we're not building this but it doesn't matter it doesn't matter otherwise do we have these kind of things that's print out at the back or how people want to know I think it's always best to have the handout match the presentation can we have an appendix or we refer to people online how about just a board put the floor plans up on it there and just have it at the back and people want to look at it they can do it or do you think a lot of context you might just refer to the website they're making a study at their leisure it's not what we're asking about so is this feeling clear by the way you just got thrown seven things parts of it are very clear do you miss the floor plans going? I don't miss the floor plans going I think it will save a lot of time that's great are we on to discussing cost factors? not quite yet we just have to be tiny bit more clear on 46 to say required for MSBA as a comparator I think that would be great alright we're on 48 now section 6 so I would I'm sorry so I would do the exact opposite here on slide 48 we don't need to put the new building two-story edition get rid of that text and just leave the bottom and the one thing that I would add to this is it says complicated phasing but this is I think where you want that the one and only option that requires temporary rooms and I think we need to be careful to say rooms and not classrooms because that's what they're saying is E because that is a question that people will have and it's just like what does complicated phasing mean but I want to know if there's going to be trailers out there so I think you should indicate that rather than complicated phasing needs temporary rooms not classrooms the area of complicated to simple feels like part of the continuum right and the temporary rooms are specific to E maybe asterisk E and then asterisk at the bottom and say this option requires temporary to the room but not classroom temporary space not because people might think it's classroom you can verbally say that that'll be a question I mean this indicates that we have considered this and I think this is important on this last part the rubric that we talked the last part the rubric that we talked the last part the rubric that we talked the last community didn't make it we can put it in so I don't know how the rest of the community feel what is the rubric the rubric that we were talking about consider reports thing yes so we tend to be talking about that they didn't make it and I think they can be visually I don't know if we might have the full rubric because maybe it's too much maybe we should decide choose only a portion of the rubric that highlights yeah because I think the full rubric it's multiple pages maybe why it didn't make it I don't think I'd be able to hear that I mean because assuming the title of this section has any meaning I'm not saying it doesn't I'm just saying discuss cost factors so to me you'd end the previous section with a hey how do these things match up with our goals for the building when you're in the cost factors you want to be focusing on what were the cost factors of which one of them is phasing and there are others okay okay the sign cost factor before cost factors it would close out the different options but I think we would have to talk about what gets included it's a lot a lot of time as we know and maybe this was not a fruitful exercise I'm not sure I'm happy to use it if you think it's helpful maybe not actually it implies doesn't imply one option is better than another I just think I don't know if the end of this conversation with the public the public is going to be in a place to be able to absorb everything else we've talked about and also make sense I'm not trying to say that people can't get out I think it has a place in the final report I'm open to debate about it makes it in here it was useful to us as we write a summary of each option we feel there's agreement we see regarding each option so we've tracked that criteria here so at the very least it comes into our narrative in the report we can include it in the report as well for reference but I don't know if it's helpful for public outreach although that was one of the goals in the initiative I leave it at because we're asking the public to give some feedback and in a way that chart looks like we've made our conclusions but I would like to see it in the final report because I don't have any of the pieces so moving to the next thing that's in here I guess I'm a little hung up on slides 49 and 50 and maybe even 51 to some extent what I find fascinating about them is to me they're very useful and if you take out the issue in the context of this section I think going back to something that Rudy said earlier the implication is these things are driving costs or costing money I'm not saying they're not adding costs because clearly they would but what I don't like is I feel like the information or content here is actually just useful for people to know apart from the point of whether it costs more money or not and I just wonder whether if I just wonder whether you wouldn't take slides 49 and 50 and move them up as illustrative of the sustainability section before and or move them back, put the whole sustainability section back as we were talking about earlier so we could put some numbers to either way I think it's weird to have the two things separate in this way particularly because if I remember correctly back in here the sustainability thing feels a little thin and then here you're putting sort of meat on the bones of how are we conceptualizing this and in terms of eliminating for the public even setting aside costs hey what does it mean to do this to me I find it more interesting to put the two together so you can actually have a conversation about how we thought it would be as well so following this chart I think would be the appropriate place that's exactly what I'm saying so this talks about generating energy to get to net zero what does that mean and then here you're giving a couple of practical things you can simplify the slide as we were saying earlier and then you give some simple examples of how you'd look to do that based on your expertise got it but I agree that it should be after this the same option I totally agree with her and I think that if you can get rid of when you do the simplification nobody's going to know why you're talking about a full kitchen yeah and that kind of stuff I mean just really bring that down you're getting something if you have that same thing in both so it's not a difference it's not helpful and I don't know if you were talking about 51 as well in terms of the mechanical I mean and I think I think that's legitimate too to put it back in the sustainability discussion I I'm wondering this isn't nitpicking and I probably shouldn't do it but we've got numbers there and I know why we have the numbers because we're trying to show that but I don't know if there's a better way to do that because I think people looking at I'm almost inclined to let 51 wherever it would have gone go away and I don't know if we need this chart in here but that's me I think maybe talk about it talk about the various mechanical systems we've considered but I don't know that this chart is useful for this audience for this context I think it's important I think the bigger picture is important because you have to understand that if you do something that's got a really good initial cost it's going to cost you to operate it so there's a trade-off people have to understand that kind of trade-off and that maintenance is a part of the issue so I think I don't know what the way to do it is but if there's a way to graphically represent those concepts that would be helpful and forgive me for saying this I hate saying something like this on camera I don't actually care what the facilities director said we should do option number six and I'm not saying I don't care I'm not taking that professional advice seriously we have a new facilities director the new facilities director whenever we're doing a project we'll also weigh in and I'm saying this in a harsher way than I really mean because every time you say that when you're running through the presentation it sounds so conclusory that it's like we're closing the discussion and I'm not saying you're I don't mean you intended that way so I think there's a way of saying we've illustrated the costs based on this because we got a recommendation or at least advice to prioritize this without saying it in such a way that it makes it seem like this is a burnt-done deal this is one of the slides if I were doing the PowerPoint I would have the annex at the end in case this question comes up and somebody wants to really weigh into the net zero and the energy choices and so on but not present it unless the question comes up but I don't know if that was a recommendation somebody else made I like doing that in my PowerPoint space okay, so hang on to that hold that thought, which was a good thought but can we jump now to the cost matrix because the cost matrix talks about different mechanical systems which page? this is the CIS one it's 53 52 or 53 or 54 54 has total project cost which is the one I'm suggesting 54 is the project cost oh that's right, both of them have different experience systems so this one mentions the different HVA systems and we're showing that we included one particular one in the cost analysis we can talk about that later if you want in QA what those different systems are that's thank you this may seem harsh but I don't know if any of that is going to be sensible to people without the chart before I would just take those bottom line numbers between the options and put it in the slide with options, here's what we're doing this one is the brand new building this is what you get for it and this is what we think the total project cost this one, this one and get rid of the whole matrix or put it in the back I mean no one's going to be able to read this it's not going to be anything so I had similar concerns about these two pages so first of all people are not going to be able to understand construction costs for every person's total project cost without a long discussion I think it probably means more to people to talk about cost per square foot somewhere so I mean it's kind of take it away but I think that might make some sense I know we talk about that later given the fact that the discussions that we've had with Dr. Morris have indicated that we really are we're honing in on 420, 425 I wonder if you could declutter this also and say we studied all of it but honestly you know it would be 420 or 425 and just say we know it from 315 and 360 and just shed that and in terms of doing all the other choices for HVAC I don't know if there's a better way to do that because you're still going to end up with half the slide I know last meeting we talked about and I think that's what these last three slides said but we talked about just honing in on like you know we're saying we looked at this, we looked at this, we looked at this and then we sort of picked three options that seemed like the best options based on what we needed and we looked at the HVAC so I just wonder if presenting just pulling out three options and showing them as an example I mean all the other information is going to be available on purpose just pulling out three things, three different options that we can focus on and focus on first cost, maintenance cost you know just all those details that I think are important but we're not just giving them this big thing like these are all the costs so anyway that's just I like the suggestion of taking the costs and combining them with the range the range of options this business and just the big numbers this is order of magnitude these options will fall we have lots of detail in the background we can get into details later if you want but take the mechanical chart put it in resource after after the presentation and the same thing for this chart these charts or one of these charts can be put as a resource but it's not focused on it and I think you can speak to the fact I mean you should wherever you're stepping lightly over something you should feel free to sprinkle in things like we looked at multiple different conceptual options for HVAC systems we evaluated their efficiency and their cost so we did that and we selected an option here for illustrative purposes when you go to that I think we need to talk about 52 which is the procurement effort and we talked about this before that for you we're hearing that it makes sense for it not to be construction manager or as conferred to be general contractor and I think that if you want to include 52 I just think that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to include B through F in that and just to talk about the graphics need to be really simple you can't read it in 8.5 by 11 so you're not going to but to talk about this is why you know we think that the best thing to do would be to be GC and this is why and here's some numbers that show that I think we need to be clear and I think it is true that MSBA no longer gives you reimbursement so you can say that in this slide and explain why you're treating new differently from Renault in this but it's what you would do so why not say that okay we can simplify this we'll take the chart we'll just have two headings we'll talk about the difference that one is 90% of the other and we'll talk about, we'll have a note about MSBA no longer and why one is more applicable to new and the other is more applicable to Renault since you're formulating the question yes I have so I have going back to this one so the decision is that it's out completely or 3 and 54 yeah those are out those are in the headings okay and then in a simplified form of cost is included so in this chart where we have this we would have a question that you would put the construction cost or the project but in that one we have included Renault that we have sub cost and we are early in the project so we have this a lot of wiggle room I think you have to show a total project I mean ultimately that's what the what the town has to budget around what MSBA versus around people lead I think you do it but I think you have to talk about where we are in this process and how that is different from where you'd be at project scope and budget or schematic design that there is the contingencies are larger and you're erring on the side of you know caution that we continue to talk about cost in this committee so I think that would all be fair but you have to you can't just we have to talk through it but also that's the funny part about it because there is no project in existence that doesn't have sub cost so there is extra in there but it's not all extra so that's why you have to talk through it because the difference of 5% it's not like it's meaningless but I'm just saying if you want the construction number alone that would actually be a completely false number because the soft cost would actually have to be added in I know but they I'm just saying there would be a third number then but you know what I mean but it's literally it's an equally false number Design contingency cost is not something that is it's the sort of known unknown so it's not something that it's not something that you predict will go away you hold it precisely for the reason at feasibility because these are things we will learn about over the course so you can't present as a hopeful thing that we lose design contingency costs because no that's the important planning that's what you should have I think by simplifying it we can try to avoid going down it's simply the magnitude of it is going to change there will always be design contingency but as you go further into the process that percentage will change over time if this went closer it could even go up in other words I'm sorry I'm missing why it's important to talk about that at this point I don't think it is if someone asks why are you talking about total project costs if they want to we can get into it I think I think I've heard our direction to Richard is that simplify it put it in that slide that I can kind of see in front of you and we have all these other things to talk about in the background but at some point in the conversation you're giving context about what total project costs are so Maria I'm going to say that the reason that you do have to talk about it is that people are going to look people are going to know costs of other projects but those costs that they're going to know about are going to be things that have gone out to bid things that have been in schematic design so they have to understand that being at this point in the process means that there is more uncertainty and I'm not saying that it's just like I'm going to take this and divide it by what the real number is it's that there is more uncertainty now and when you get into a project and you're getting into construction there will be much less uncertainty about those numbers and it's not a small amount going from direct cost to construction cost to total project cost they are big big dollar amounts so people should be aware would you want to see a graph of school escalation costs over time is that what you're getting at the fact that we're at the beginning of the process and over time no, not so much the escalation from year to year to year because that's not something that we can we can control we can control this either it's just to explain that there is where you are in developing a building that gets me to another slide aren't you aren't you just going to describe what it is total project cost includes all of the components of a typical project which is construction cost includes soft cost furniture and equipment and contingencies and if you inflate also if you've inflated the construction cost in 2020 just say that then you're done let's move on yeah, overly idealistic but do we think we can get there in about 5 minutes so we can touch on some of our other items let's see I know so where are we 55 55 I have two comments here so one I'm a little troubled that again we are using I think we had this discussion the maple elementary school is more than twice the size of this one it's very expensive one and it doesn't go with the average of the MSBA I think the question is why do you choose this one so shouldn't we go more as a comparison MSBA what's the purpose of this slide and then the other comment is that you made a comment that the previous one was cheaper because it was the large size maple is much larger size I think you have to be careful when you give justifications with the data so is the purpose really to acknowledge that you've gone through budgeting on a previous project and that project budget needs to be updated to compare it with where you are I wonder out loud whether or not what is the value of this slide in the context next week versus conversation we've had to kind of understand the numbers and perhaps there is less value in that broader conversation I don't know this would require a fair bit of conversation to unpack in the interest of cutting slides I would suggest we cut this slide what do others think sure I would love to cut this slide I would like to add something else if we're going to argue in the best a sense of the terms in a wonderful Athenian debate if we're going to argue what this slide means in this committee then there's no way in heck we should be presenting it next week and having that discussion you should still have it because people are going to say how does this compare with the square footage with the previous project that question is going to be all you need to say is the numbers it's apples and oranges that was done so you'd have to re-examine those and this one has some administrations and okay Rudy is it worth making a broader point that the numbers are more important as a comparison between the options than as a final number that's settled based on whether we could things will change during the process in other words to caution people that this number could change because of design contingency because of different energy options chosen and so on and so forth yes so I think the real value of those numbers is to show the relative costs and that various cost factors contribute to these numbers those factors could change as the project design or as the project program is further considered I think we should be prepared though to be able to answer the question I wouldn't put in a slide about how this does compared to Wildwood and I think just saying apples and oranges is going to feel very unsatisfying you might have to say why is it apples and oranges how is it different well I'm not going to put words in your mouth but talking about differences in scale it's done at a different time not at zero not at zero it's a bigger square footage so we would need to re-examine a different site and how and I think we would maybe not for this thing but in our report like how can we extrapolate to be able to make an apples to apples thought about that because we do need to be able to when we head into this broader community discussion about other things like how do we use both of these things into a community discussion is the framing of this to me would be how do you what's your suggestion about how you take this report and then use it sitting beside other reports like the one for Wildwood and help guide public discussion or a frontal discussion and what might you need to update or change to be able to do that that's a topic for a future meeting I would certainly say that in the final report we will re-examine the Wildwood and try to compare that so you have an apples to apples comparison I think that's a bad idea I think we should just talk about what we're talking about don't even volunteer I wouldn't as part of the report I mean if you're going to do that then I think you need to set it up against you know things that are similar we're looking at if we should be in that ballpark we should be you know we should be saying this is that's actually more what I was saying I'm just saying is given narrative guidance that if you're going to choose to try to compare these things here's some things you've done that don't need to be conclusion these are things to think about when you do that just leave it at that let's move on sorry we limited the time here you guys haven't presented sorry I don't want to share back this hasn't been we haven't seen these before so maybe you want to walk us through the case study so I think this was an effort to try to hone in on three out of those various options we looked at and tried to make some assumptions about energy use intensity HVAC maintenance costs etc. carbon emissions and come up with a bottom line and the bottom line would be also it depends upon whether you own the photovoltaics or whether you lease them you can see there's a $3 million spread if you own them the project costs will be $58 million if you lease them it will be $3 million less so that was just an effort to compare these three options that we chose three case studies that we chose out of all of them that's true I think why did you choose these three what were the sailing components so we looked at the new building we looked at the Renault edition from option C and we looked at the very minimal option E which still meets your program but it's kind of the least costly and then with option A we wanted to target a better energy use intensity so we targeted the 30 and see how that would play out in terms of overall project cost and the systems that would be required this may add confusion oh these three slides I have a comment this number doesn't coincide with any of the numbers on the matrix it won't because it's GC procurement and it involves EUI 30 and all the numbers on the matrix are EUI 50 another reason not to have the matrix there so that's an issue because I was like wait the number is completely different than in the matrix we realized at a certain point but we realized that the matrix was sort of penalizing some of the options and so in its necessity to be so rigidly similar between all of the options we were actually missing perhaps more realistic opportunities and so that was an advantage of doing case study however it may be very difficult to tell that story and I'm sure if you can tell it it would probably be beneficial I think that you did this on our recommendation because we were talking about I think what you're saying that we're missing in the matrix is we're not looking at operating costs and that's been something we've been talking about the whole time and I think it's really important that somehow and this might not be the way to do it maybe not even in this session but that somehow we really are clear that the different options we're looking at there's first costs and there's operating costs and we want to be cognizant of both and making decisions so the very last slide you have energy slide 60 costs, utility costs I recognize there was some debate over the validity of the carbon emissions points but to me this slide sums up that there are a range of impacts associated with or benefits or whatever costs associated with the different alternatives including from an operating perspective I would actually go back to something I think you started to say a moment ago that I would ditch the three case studies for the purposes of next week part of the reason and maybe I would hit-pocket some of this stuff that if something came up and you needed to illustrate something you could talk about it further so part of the reason I'm saying is that I have a funny feeling that even though we've cut out a few slides and I don't think we've cut out as many as we originally were implying we're going to that by the time you walk people through all of this their brains are going to be overloading and then to go to these case studies after that I think if they're just going to explode I agree that's why I was inclined to drop them at the stage I think maybe the way to do this is to say and it's truthful we haven't talked about the operating costs yet this is new data to us and we can say that look we're at a point right now where we're considering that and that is information that will be included in our report at maybe in a future meeting but we haven't gone over it yet but to let people know we are thinking about the knowledge that's an important issue but I think actually you know what that is that's also sort of a next steps unfinished business or next things sort of slide thinking of next things are going to be hitting which I think is an important thing for people to know as well as a schedule slide when in broadest brush when different things are likely to hit but I think that in terms of the substance of the information that we're giving to the audience before these we've already hit a maximum of what we could possibly think because we're going to be able to absorb but I think I think this slide should be there the last slide I like the suggestion of next steps which includes further examination of operating costs maybe it's a further discussion of CM versus GC because it depends upon which option you choose could affect the cost what about MSBA involvement and the funding cost to town potential reimbursement we had an email asking there was, I think you want to be able to answer that question I think it's and I think you should have an answer ready for this I'm just saying it's a next step because we haven't moved it at this time potential MSBA I think that implies that the MSBA is a step in this process I don't think that's guaranteed there's got to be a way to rephrase that then so I think answering the question analytically of what do you think a potential MSBA reimbursement would be worth under these different options if you're able to answer that question in a general sense why wouldn't we want an answer to that question because it's not determinative, you're not the MSBA so it's not like you want to take that to the bank right, so that's one of the next steps I want to go back to the MSBA for a completely different reason some people will be somewhat familiar with the MSBA process and so I think it might be very helpful to explain what we're doing in relation to where would we have been in the MSBA process and I think it's fair to say we will have completed basically a PDP preliminary design program and all the things that are asked of a school building committee we will do I think it may be a slide that goes through a checklist that says this is what would be involved and we will have accomplished that because people are asking like what did you spend our quarter million dollars on actually we do have a flow chart and you can incorporate the MSBA process and when we're done with this then you'll have your report you'll go through substantially this section of the whole MSBA process so that's the money that you've wisely invested with the caveat that if MSBA accepts it because we were not actually approved to do this by the MSBA but to point out like all the work that you would do just to put it in people's minds where are we in the process like we're not in schematic design we're way back here at preliminary design options and we've done all this work just to give people a framework I don't know where you're taking your flow chart from but under no circumstances do I think you should take a flow chart produced by MSBA show it on a screen and show that we've completed up to x step because that's going to there's already enough misunderstanding that that would dramatically add to that misunderstanding and I know you're not saying this so what I'm saying is pull the bullets out and drop them into your own slide paraphrase them paraphrase them and say these are the deliverables that we're giving you because I think that will because it's true, that's true and it'll be useful to people the other will cause a minor civil war to him do I mention MSBA? MSBA considerations as part of the next steps what do you mean by that? no I think what I plan to say at the very beginning just to circle back to the beginning what I plan to say at the very beginning is that we are a committee that sits outside of that process we're not part of any pipeline and I think if we can keep it in that context that we've used it as a touchstone trying to think about how to think about this project we looked at the MSBA process but we're outside of that process and we're not leading to that process another process will have to be maybe you should say it it should be part of your beginning this is how we framed our work that's right I think when you're talking you've done this throughout the process where you've described that your work is grounded in a working understanding and familiarity with the MSBA process so that what we're doing matches up with it in a way that enhances its utility I think people should know that I think that's a great thing to know I don't know it's not a winged-nettery exercise it's a grounded exercise and that's in to me that other than what you said so I think that's more appropriate for Jonathan to talk about that what this effort has been using the MSBA method is what this study is grounded upon yes like for instance we use their space guidelines for example so I think it would be appropriate for Jonathan to just touch upon it we have five minutes left if you want to share if you'd like to I don't know if it's a procedure or if that's a guess we not we have a lot to do here well I guess let me take a quick poll about who can stay a little past seven I've had a very long day so I can't stay for a long long long time I will peter out before 7.30 6.55? so are we pushing to 7.15? I can stay until 7.10 well let's shoot for 7.10 as our next kind of deadline are there things we have to knock down and get down to 9? I want to make sure we've knocked down giving our designers feedback so that they can rework things I think we've gotten half of the slides we cut a lot of the slides can we authorize the chairman to confer with the TSKPE if they need to resolve whether something should be cut or maybe a subcommittee we've actually talked a little bit ahead of this meeting the mini whatever we call it working group which included Mike and we're open to as soon as you've got another draft ready if you want to shoot it to us we'll give you feedback if you want to do a conference call do it whatever we want to make sure that you feel comfortable with our input having been incorporated I think it's built in but if folks want to vote over it I will entertain a motion any other comments on the content of the presentation okay I'm going to move us on do you need anything at the middle school like a board or is there any that we should bring in that we can talk with okay I saw a hand from the audience I will entertain a brief comment I think there will be a question what is the cost premium for a net serial building that's over a stretch code building and I agree with you I think that question is going to come up but I think you need to think about how to answer it thank you because I forgot it the question of there is the 10% thing in the bylaw I think we have to have the answer to that question don't confuse that I'm really asking what the cost premium is for the envelope and the HAC and all the things that contribute for the 30 I think we have to answer that question as well we have to be able to say the design that we have does that report it's up to 10% and I don't know whether it's a project cluster I don't know what the details are but I think somebody's got to look into that and know the answer to that question we don't need to debate this now I'm just saying you need to have an answer for this week so let's move on okay the only other question I could think of that the public might throw at you in the context of the other discussions going on in town is how does this extrapolate can't we do how do we extrapolate this to a proposed like 600 student bill I'm going to speak for myself I think we should say we shouldn't try to do that because again there will be a new process which will have our data have the other data that's been collected in previous project and ultimately this could be another feasibility study at least as dense as this one that we'll look at two sites probably but we can use the borings I just want to be prepared with that answer what can we take from this there's a lot of stuff I'm going to correct apply to that and we just should be ready to answer that one absolutely okay I'm going to put my glasses back on because I can't read my own right could I ask is there anything that requires a vote let's do the invoice and get the vote over with and then we can go through some of the rest I emailed TSKP's next invoice for $10,000 I forgot to bring copies tonight second all in favor okay I think there might be another vote because we keep talking about the soil pit and the test pit and the funding do we need to vote on that okay oh sorry go ahead regarding the test pit after receiving the geotechnical information we reviewed it with CIVL and asked do you really need the test pit for feasibility study at this point and the feeling was no we have enough information so I don't know if you want to proceed with that I do at Jonathan's direction I asked several people in town involved with building projects if this information would be useful for future work and they said probably not okay so the borings and the value which is kind of confirm that conversation so I would suggest we take that one off and the conductivity I think we can set the conductivity aside and you know I think we have a lot of valuable data I think this one is so specific to one HVAC approach that we ultimately don't need to answer I don't think that we could let I would agree with you we've touched a little bit on the geotech do we have people have other geotechnical report review questions I would like to hear a sort of explanation about this artisanal that piece did catch my interest and an explanation to the public and positive pressure you want to hear the story of what happened I think for the public we need to explain what the report says I think we need to explain how it would affect what we're doing part of the feasibility study okay well the report noticed in one of the borings over by the outfall here drainage outfall when they drilled the ground water came up three feet out of the hole yes if you look across the landscape you see artisanal water coming out of the landscape and it caused it to happen when they drove there that was one location but the other locations the ground water was lower so why artisanal water was coming out there I'm not sure I can't say that was there any note and maybe they didn't note this back in the 70s but was there any note about artisanal water in the old reports you don't have the reports we just sent so I kind of didn't notice that so I think if you want to get an answer to a geologic question you ask a geologist so I would say from speaking with geologists I am not a geologist I do not play on TV however I am given to understand that this is not an unusual thing and I think that if we want to have an explanation about that we should ask a geologist to explain I mean there we live in a glacial valley so we had earlier building like engineering report I don't think we've thoroughly talked about that in our meeting and I don't consider us asking you two questions at the end of a very long meeting the equivalent of going over the geotechnical survey so I want to put these on future agendas as items and ideally what I'd like to do is I'd like us to put them on the agenda before an update to the cost study and other stuff because we get, I mean for all good reasons I'm not being negative but we spend so much time on that stuff that we never actually get to these other and give them the level of attention they deserve yeah and the other item that I'd really like to get on the future agenda is talking in more detail we've already talked about this about the various energy operating costs including the geothermal addressing Mr. Riddle's letter because I would like to discuss that yeah I just finished my thought and this is going to sound funny but it's also sort of one of the unfair elements of having a committee like this is since some of the work around designing the building alternatives is based upon the engineering analysis as well as obviously geotech and other things we actually as a committee have to kick the tires on that more because otherwise we can't say to anyone with a straight face that we know these different options are strictly speaking viable because they're based upon a set of assumptions that and we're not saying everything you're doing may be perfectly great and wonderful but we actually haven't done as a committee our due diligence to assess that so we just got to literally spend like two hours just pouring over that and talking about it but does that mean we need the conductivity test to decide if we're going to get into the different energy options and kick the tires is a conductivity test needed to know whether geothermal is even a feasible option or is it can we assume that? you got RT to know well as long as it's wet it means better conductivity I would think so we can just assume that do you know if there's a geothermal field nearby in the valley in the valley yes in Gordon Hall next to Gordon Hall can we contact the people who designed that this area the conductivity would be similar? that's a different place it's not the same kind of environment we can also ask our civil engineer yeah my entire point is getting to some of the gender later so I would like to we have to talk about the survey and publicly note that we still don't have it yet yes I think everyone if they have a chance to catch them in the evening you know Anthony did send a note saying I can make my displeasure with Berkshire that we have been strung along for quite some time now and I mean they're already technically not compliant I think any future delays will warrant being notified formally that there we consider them in breach and specific remedies there I asked why I was told too many projects turn over vacations sorry I'm not saying that on camera yes I know I don't like to stare at you anyone on camera my question is at what point do we say right we need this information we're not getting it from them we're not going to pay them for it and we need to pay somebody else to give it to us are we going to reach that point they've already done the field I feel like this is mainly about I guess what I would suggest in the interest of both time tonight and I don't know propriety I guess that we continue to ask Anthony in his role to put the appropriate level of onus to get done what they need to get done in a timely fashion folks are in agreement with that but I think it's clear the level of frustration at the level of service we're going to be wrapping up so at some point we're going to have to call it sure okay I have a question were they addressing the endangered species issues in that survey report or not I'm going to defer a little bit to I think the what the survey I don't believe we have endangered species because we kind of use a standard scope because isn't that still an outstanding question when I'm looking through this is a first question I want to answer if it's not I'll go back to the scope I don't think so we'll come back to that I totally don't get asked on their teams I think we should touch on what's coming up and talk about just get people's reactions to some of the other events that are happening we also do need to set a date for the follow-up public outreach thing but maybe the outreach subgroup can I don't think we had a hard date on that I'd like to know is anything else going to be required of the members of this committee on the 13th are we showing up and being pretty right and if we're going to be there we're going to need to convene or I don't know what the rules are we need to post a meeting we do need to post a meeting which I will do probably tomorrow morning I think in my head I didn't think there would be that folks need to really do anything that most of the work will be by TSKB and I'll have a little preamble but that's how it was in my head I've opened to other suggestions but mostly it's led by our designers I won't be able to make it are we sure we've got quorum I'm not sure we have quorum because we didn't post specifically about that I think Eric you will kick me if I'm wrong but I think if we drop below quorum we can still have it we can the difference is we can't talk about instead of saying we're not going to choose the talk it means we're absolutely prohibited from talking including by the way actually for you you could talk about things we've already decided or things that are already decided you could not offer an opinion that would be essentially debate in front of the committee and there would be potentially a little challenge about me talking about future steps in that regard because that would be to me right it could only be things that have already been decided but I think I can talk about the past of course again, do you want to charge the committee what we're doing absolutely I would encourage everybody to make it because it shows a certain level of engagement also we would not be able to engage with the people asking questions that they might not know what we might so I think we have to try to have quorum so that we are able to answer questions I think it would be better generally in this format though it's kind of a point of contact just like I kind of chaired this I don't know that I'm necessarily chairing that but I think we want to have the direction as much as possible the question is directed to TSKP if it's a kind of committee organizational what have you been doing things I can probably answer most a little bit it's an interesting procedural question I mean from my perspective I actually would hope I actually am not sure I really want I mean from my perspective all the members of the committee sitting and if there's a question that comes up different hands go up from the committee and then some different people will answer the question from the audience I'm not sure that leads us to the place where we want to be as a public facing product but the point I'm getting at is the closer the question from the public comes to being a controversial one the more likely that unless the answer is utterly you know completely unequivocally boring and simple then it's not clear to be whether members of the committee are going to agree with each other about the answer and then all of a sudden the likelihood that we debate amongst ourselves in front of the public about what we think about in the answer isn't really great if somebody has a question and there isn't a clear answer to it we should bring it back to our meeting thank you for that input it's valuable input so a couple of things Amherst media is going to be taping this number one, number two I think probably at the end it would maybe make sense for you to get up there and say tell people how to offer feedback and I think that come to the meeting this is how you can contact us maybe somehow recording people's comments as well and not just on Amherst media but you know that would probably be a good thing to document in some way there should be a meeting report could encapsulate that we should have thought of that a little earlier this is a thing where having a professional recorded or at least someone more professional would be a good idea can we ask the school we can ask I can't guarantee as a one-time not to throw the school committee under the bus group for recording meetings is it dead? I don't think we can just ask or expect that that would happen I think you said something different a moment ago you said we could reach out and ask if somebody might be available I think that would be the thing to do even if we had to compensate them out of our minute we should do the same thing with the town no the answer to what you just said a moment ago is no she goes to a million meetings already someone else might be available we just don't know who that is we'll ask because I think it would be really difficult for us to do it it's difficult enough to record these meetings I think it's unfair I'm feeling really sheepish that we didn't think of this before and work on it but that's we'll work on it now where are we for time it's quarter after we do have two other than we're going to have this meeting next week we have another one two weeks later the working group needs to pick a time in coordination with TSKP there are two recorded events coming up Mike's was supposed to happen today but he had to get rescheduled it'll probably be the would it look like the 26th I think the 26th is what Mike was suggesting and then Friday as we talked about earlier Stan Rosenberg reached out to have come in some form to his and I don't think I think at Mike's we talked about showing some slides I think we probably still need to talk a little bit about that it's very easy to go through this very short period of time I think it was just a handful of slides just from I talked briefly with Stan today about what he wants to talk about or what his format is he says it's very conversational he kind of wants to know what our charge is what our sunset is what we've been doing I don't think there's going to be time for a single slide but I would feel really weird presenting any of your slides in that context especially given that things are in flux well for the meeting on the 26th or the taping on the 26th it wouldn't be a problem showing the same slides we were showing in the public an excerpt from that presentation just to help the viewers understand it we can do that because they've already been shown two questions two comments you're coming to Amherst on the 26th so maybe we have to talk to maybe having another public outreach on the 26th since you're going to be on town that's true, it's a mid-week time it's a Tuesday so maybe it could be during the day on a Tuesday so we have to chat we have to chat about that and then the other thing is advertising the meeting that we have next week in all means possible to the forum so if the committee can help spread the word about the forum I had a couple of comments about the flyer that you had made and I thought it wasn't appropriate and I think it wasn't going to the point of the flyer so I I don't know if you're going to post a flyer I think we should all approve it I think you sent it ahead it's for this purpose do you have copies? I have one copy so I had even some feedback there I think the table with the charts doesn't make sense to have it in there because I haven't noticed it replaced with Fort River picture that's good because it has to be one way and one way and that's it, it doesn't have to be I think that was yeah, graphic design and a lot of dense color to catch people's attention so having just like a block of color is very helpful for things that are up so that's why I wanted just green yeah, but the table with the course it was no, so yeah yeah, go so that was my comment but also I've been in touch with the Gasset and Jonathan is CC on that and I'll be talking to you maybe publish the BGOs but some of them they have published and I had re-asked to publish this week people can reach out to your own BGO to publish but it has been distributed through the press release form the press release, the only thing I've been sending around, this is the press release they've published the press release just follow up in your personal BGOs that would be helpful to try to reach as many people and if you know any other distribution list, so district one has a distribution list that they're going to publish instead of an email but I don't know if other district has a distribution list because we don't want to reach the same we have to go beyond the schools so that's the main message is to go beyond the schools and it's a little bit out of order but one thing to remember about the kind of Amber's Media interview events is that they all both Mike's and Stan Rosenberg's have production time and so they will go out they will be available to the public to see after next week's event at the earliest hopefully before the final event but they have a lag time of about three weeks are we doing more feedback on? because we want to get flyers up I'd like to give you whatever feedback we can give the other thing that I would do with this to get rid of this last sentence just because people aren't going to read that much and it's kind of confusing but what it's saying the results will be used to inform a broader conversation about holistically addressing learning environment challenges throughout our district you know it's kind of like we're telling people what we did and I think that's a conclusion people are confused enough can we get feedback on the press release that they wanted some distinguishing process and that this was separate from the conversations going on and I wonder if we need some explanation yeah that's precisely what that's trying to do is saying how does this relate to the MSBA SOI process without using words like acronyms like MSBA and SOI I think I think it has to be what, where and when and without getting an explanation because that what is the problem from them before we rescues them from committing when is the middle school who's going to be there the SKP rescues them from it that's who, what when and where but the other one is a discussion that can happen within their framework but it's not what, when and where if one were going to do that then you'd have to eliminate the entire paragraph I'm okay I mean I'm just saying it's all kind of all or nothing you could rewrite the last sentence but if you don't rewrite, I mean if you strike the last sentence and only have the section before it then that's not really helpful it says, I mean it's okay so look before any recent events happen we were tasked a couple of years ago now to do a report to do a report that included an analysis of different options, potential options for the TAM for pre-K through 6th grade on the further side which would inform a broader discussion what are we going to do? I'm just saying this right now this doesn't say the committee is writing or commissioning a report that does these things the way the sentence is written right now it demands further explanation because it says we're exploring options for a possible school on the site and while that is the content of the report the report we're actually doing is we're commissioning and overseeing the drafting and finalization of a report which would explore these different options without the word report in it it potentially leaves pregnant the question of where the options fit within a school building process I'm not trying to put a hard emphasis on it I'm just saying if the first sentence does that then I think the last part isn't necessary because you can just tell people at the meeting what the report could be and we are going to we've been talking about that is there any other thing that these flyers do there's a lot of people that are going to see these flyers that aren't coming to the meeting and maybe just saying a report is sufficient but what is this committee? they can go on to the website and look on a flyer you can not explain the work of five years and a half it's an advisory group designed to develop an analysis of options that are feasible for the four river site that's what it is no, the catchiest flyer type I didn't say that I'm just saying we're trying to get another feedback I guess I would unfortunately that to me would argue for simplicity the top piece without the paragraph with a link to our website well I can't think of a piece of paper to a website but a reference to our website to find out more information I was trying to formulate something for the town banner at two and I was getting back in this loop of too much information because it's going to be up there for 30 seconds less than 30 seconds it's going to be up there for literally five seconds and I was coming back to just happening where when because every time I started writing text it got long so that's my two cents keep it simple direct to our website the website doesn't I guess you get to the mission statement eventually if you dig long enough but I don't know I'm feeling really this was what I suggested in our very first press release and we went round and round about it and we started the Wildwood project and it was the Wildwood project and people thought it was the Wildwood project but it turned into a district white project and we've been calling ourselves the Fort River Building Committee on a ton of stuff without the work feasibility in it all the time and I think it's very, has been throughout this process very unclear to the community that there's certainly people who think that building a building on the Fort River site and this process is a fate of complete and I feel it's important that we do things to like put banners up in the library that let people know that that is not the results of this work the results of this work inform a broader community discussion you know, our task has not changed from the beginning we were told to say what's possible at the Fort River site Pre KQ6 school at the Fort River site what's possible I think that that's I think that's John, I know you and I talked about this months ago our agenda really shouldn't say Fort River School Building Committee it should say Fort River School Building and Site Feasibility Study Committee because that's what it actually is and we should really stop saying Fort River School Building Committee the challenge with that is that our website says that and so I'm going to just the only reason I'm saying that is that because that title is in fact consistent with the charge that as Maria accurately said we have been following all along so it is actually true it is a more accurate description of what we're actually doing and what we've been doing I mean our name is our name it was created it's what we're named in the Tomlin article but we're supposed to be giving other feedback on why this is not a discussion right now I think the way I've been presented many times is Fort River School Building Committee DASH Feasibility Study that's the title we have we can add the DASH Feasibility Study because that's what we are doing but it's the title that the group is Fort River School Building Community we can add DASH Feasibility Study report presentation February 13th 6.30pm middle school that's it if you want my suggestion on the flyer discuss the future of the Fort River elementary school site look here for more information come here on this date I think that's much more confusing I think it leaves people with a lot of questions but you're trying to drive traffic to the media you're trying to drive traffic to the media for free beer yeah add it to middle school not in the schools I don't think do we have a date for our next meeting our next regular meeting we do not 20th there is no school that week which may or may not be problematic for folk why don't we send around an official e-mail poll and see if we're going to the meeting that week it would be nice to send another doodle poll I will do the doodle and then do the other one I'll talk to you I'll find out from you guys first when you're available Wednesday that is the way to do it well I guess part of that is if you're not available then we don't have a chance to kind of talk about any changes we want to make before the following events so that might figure into dating a big following event plus we're going to want to talk to a group about what we hear at the event so that will probably happen that following even if we meet without them to consolidate our feedback submit our feedback you wanted to ask for people to build the week of the 20th I can do that look at you I mean I still feel like we should use this on opportunity more fully explained but when I'm hearing from the committees we should just strike it the whole thing and just leave the website is that what I'm hearing from the committee or are there others with me who feel like this would be an opportunity to provide some clarity to the public we're not attending this meeting I think I don't want to fight about this for the next half an hour my argument for striking is the fact that I think we're not going to come to a place they're in nicely yes okay I'm going to look for a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second all in favor thank you future meeting