 Thank you, Shawn. Good morning, everyone. This is the March 25th meeting of the elementary school building committee and my the first order of businesses I need to call out the names of the committee members. I see we have a quorum and as others join us, we'll also make sure they can hear and be heard. So I'm going to just announce the names and just indicate whether you can hear Shawn. Okay, we didn't hear you, Shawn, but. Yes, I can hear. Sorry. Okay, that's okay, Mike. President. Paul. Jonathan. Here. Ben. I am here. Hi, Rupert. I am here. Angelica. Here. Simone. Here. Okay. Seeing we have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order. And Margaret Wood has joined us now, Margaret. I know you said you came in on your phone, so I'm not sure whether you're going to be able to get the screen, but I can just announce the agenda. If that's easier for you. Yeah. Give me just a second. I, my computer finally opened. And I'm going to rejoin and pull up the agenda. Okay. Okay. So while Margaret's rejoining the, with the agenda and also the outline of what this next step has in it in terms of the ingredients of the report. And then we will go to Donna, where she will be leading us through literally next steps and where we are. And in this process, I want to assure everyone that we have been collecting questions as they've come up questions and or comments, and we'll try to. We're going to address some of them but we're collecting them both from public comments and from written comments that people have done along the way and we will try to speak to those in terms of either we're ready to give answers or when we will have answers to them. So, Margaret, I'm going to turn it over to you just to show the agenda. Yeah, and to talk a little bit about these preferred schematic report this the stage we're in. Yeah. Can everybody see the agenda. Yes. So apologies my computer was not obviously hadn't had its coffee this morning so. Yes, so we're going to talk through the preferred schematic report. And then we're going to Dennis goes going to run through their next design steps and how input will be provided. The MSBA is reviewing our documents, the PDP, and they were not. They were not able to get the comments back to us for today's meeting but I expect they'll come next week. We have two weeks to turn them around. So I expect we'll have a chance to review them with you at the April 8 meeting. And then we also have on the agenda, the sort of going back and looking again at the criteria and if it makes sense to simplify the evaluation matrix, voting on the minutes from the last meeting and which include the vote to submit the PDP. And then talking through the net zero and the upcoming timeline so that is. That's the agenda. Thank you Margaret. So, Go ahead. No, go ahead. So Kathy, you wanted me to talk a little bit about what is in the preferred schematic report. Yes, and as I think everyone saw, I posted the actual MSBA feasibility study and flagged the part of it, which is the PSR are. So it lays out exactly what we're going to have to produce but I thought it would just be useful. As I saw is some of the parts of this we've gone a long way to preparing in this first stage and the preliminary design. So we have, yeah. So here is the preferred solution document. Let me just get to the beginning so final evaluation of alternatives. You know, this is where there's going to be a detailed analysis that you all will be involved in scoring for the of the options that are on the table so the six options. I guess there's actually really, there's four options, because we're not doing the renovation options so renovation and addition or new construction on each of the two sites. So as you've kind of seen this already the summary of preliminary design pricing. If you've looked at the PDP you saw that what we was provided in the PDP what the MSBA is looking for is a simplified version of this but Danisco went quite far with this at the PDP level. So this will be a summary of what we give back to them that outlines cost and then typically as you can see here in this table the preferred solution is identified in bold. And then there is a summary which I'm not going to go into in detail of sort of updating the materials that were in the PDP. I think one item that's important here is a sustainability scorecard which you know in this case will be more detailed than what the MSBA usually gets usually they're looking for a demonstration of how the project will achieve lead silver or meet the message the Massachusetts chips and then there are all the kinds of drawings in addition which support the developed design of the project building plans site plans and then a budget document which is more detailed in the PDP there's you know basically a statement about the municipalities financial condition and their their plans for financing the project this budget will go into a lot of detail about how the project is going to be paid for and what the tax impact is. And I'm not going to dig into this other than to say there's also more detail project schedule. If you had a chance to look at the PDP. You saw the kind of one page schedule that we that answer provided that sort of explains the overall timeline and that that's kind of the high level summary. Dennis go team is there anything that I missed that we should talk about. No, I mean well so. No that's that's fine and then the question I think what is in everyone's mind is how do we get there. And what are the decisions that need to be made and when, etc. Right. Exactly. Yeah. And I just want to recognize that Allison has joined us and Allison, can you hear me and I just and Tammy has joined us so I just want to make sure everyone can hear and be heard. Allison. Yes, I can hear you and Tammy. Yes, I can hear you. Okay, welcome. So Donna, I think we're turning it over to you. All right, great. And so this is a fluid process, and we appreciate everyone's comments and extremely thoughtful and helpful, and it helps us understand what's important to you as a community. So we're not going to have all of the answers today, or next week, but we want to continue to receive them and as we go through the options, obtain more information. Start shaping the each option or alternative. That's when we'll be able to really probably provide you more concrete answers to all of your questions some of them we can answer now. Some will answer next week, and then others will probably be answered in sequence as the concepts are developed. So for next week, or for the next steps, we're still recommending let's meet every two weeks we'll have plenty to talk about. We want to continue our conversations about NCE. And I just want to clarify from Mark, what Margaret said about what we need to submit for MSBA MSBA is just looking. They want to see how we're going to achieve their requirements whether it's their minimum requirements which is being certified for either New England chips or lead. We haven't yet decided if we're doing chips or leads. We've all made an assumption but we should probably finalize that but in order to receive two additional reimbursement points from MSBA. It's not that we have to achieve silver, but we have to achieve an additional I believe it's 20% energy savings for the project, and then you have other requirements but. You don't have to achieve silver, but you have to achieve some of what's important to MSBA and obviously the community which is energy savings. So we'll continue to have those net zero discussions, and some of the options may also inform what what the final solution is for the NCE for the project. The more important thing and again you know starting out with the program at the very beginning. It's how the program is going to shape the building, both renovation addition and new, and then how the building is shaping the site, but each site is unique so also how does the site inform the building. We want to talk about traffic and if there are any major impacts to either site and how that might help inform your decision. And then, ultimately, taking all of that information with all of your questions and our responses to those. But then we start really looking at the evaluation of the criteria and what makes the most sense. There have been some conversations, you know, maybe an ad rena we can eliminate the option for addition renovation on either of both sites, and when might that occur. And I think it's premature for us to say when that occurs, our next steps and we're working with Mike after this meeting to talk about what is most important for the program right. We're working on facial relationships and adjacencies maximizing time on learning, creating a community area of the building that can be used for the community news after hours, making sure that the other parts of the building the educational components can be properly safely closed off to the community, how the building informs the site, and how the building shapes to maximize our net zero goals. So it's a little hard to say exactly when these decisions will be made, but it will be fluid and they will just come up very clearly as we go through the next steps. And since we haven't really, we haven't finished the organization of the building, which will help the committee decide what options look better. You know, a new building on Wildwood might look different than a new building on Fort River, just because of the way the sites laid out the way the current buildings are there. And same thing with the renovation addition and the way traffic flows through so, so what we're saying is, we're going to ask to be a little patient because we're not going to have exact answers just now, but we will have plenty of time for input, and for you to respond to what we present over the next eight weeks. Margaret I don't know if you have anything to add to that. Other than just to remind everybody of the overall timeline, which is the, so this submittal that we just made the, the PDP preliminary design program, you know, had a bit of a, I would say floating the deadline that we had was self imposed. There has to be a certain amount of space between the submittal and the PSR submittal in order to give the MSBA time to review. But you know, basically they're reviewing documentation of the sort of ground rules that we're operating under the PSR submittal is directly linked to an MSBA approval so we have a hard deadline for that to submit it on June 27. And then the MSBA votes and remember the data spent six weeks later there's a board vote to approve it. And I think it's also important to say that there is staff review during this process so once we're on the MSBA board agenda, they're not going to not vote for the project they do typically have some questions and the board meeting setting. And what we will need to do as a next step is to sort of lay out the same process for community engagement we haven't done that yet for the next couple of months. So that's, that's the, the sort of next milestone that we're headed towards in terms of time frame. Thank you. Kathy, I think we are prepared to answer some questions that have come up. We can walk through some of those and I believe are we creating a frequently asked question document that we can continue to add to as the questions come up that seem appropriate, you know it's not a one off question but that really are helpful for for everyone to kind of keep track of. So there's a frequently asked question on the website now Donna but it's very general, you know it was the lead in before we started, but the answer is yes, if we have frequently asked questions, and we have answers to them we will do that. I have started drafting something on what is net zero and be different pieces of it, but there is a meeting. The committee should know there's a meeting next week at one o'clock we did set that up. We'll be getting more information to actually show people, you know what the energy savings are and what our choices are. So, as you, as we have these questions Donna we can, we will collect them and create a very specific that these questions have been asked about the process or these questions when will we know what pieces of information absolutely. And we'll put it up on the website. One of the things that's been so great about the questions that have come forward from the committee, as well as the questions we've heard in public comment is, you know, these, these are the, if you're asking the question you're not, you're not the only one so you know we're, we're, this is why I'm sort of collecting them and with Kathy and the Dinesco teams help try to make sure we capture them and then we sort of provide written responses as well as the discussion in this meeting. Donna maybe if you go into a few of them and then what we can share and send it out to everyone and and post it on thing is the questions we've collected so far. So that people understand that they're, it's being registered it's not just going out into the ozone area. And, you know, I think we had quite a few just questions that came up I know that PB is not here but she had some on on the cost estimates on on what you couldn't couldn't divide and when would we know different things so. And I want to make sure that everyone here today, last time we met was, we were getting this volume of the PDP. If to the extent people went back and read it and have any questions now, having read that document about, you know, we said this here we said that they are what does this mean. Either during the meeting or sending those in is encouraged, I mean it was a big document with a lot of information in it. So, I'm, I'm turning it back over to you Donna. And I'm turning it over to Tim. I'm going to share just the site plans to put up for reference if that's okay and then there's a few questions that we've selected that speak to the general issues of where we are now and then we can just describe the questions as we will answer them, going forward. So here is the Wildwood site. And the first question that was asked. And we spoke to it somewhat in the presentation is whether the second curb cut and access point to the site would be included, or was included with the prices that we provided with the PDP, and the answer is, it was not. We are looking at the feasibility of creating a second curb cut and what that would mean in terms of site access and analyzing the absolute requirement for it with our traffic engineer and as we study that further. If it's viable, it will absolutely be included with the next cost estimate that is going to be part of the PSR but as for PDP, it was not there. So the question was, can the field costs associated with Fort River be separated from the building so that everyone could understand what that cost is, and that will be separated. Absolutely, for the next round of estimates and we also note that we have to have a conversation with the school department. To make sure that we have those spaces programmed exactly the way that they should be. As we have noted that they were assumed to be a replacement in kind and improve so that they could be more useful. We just want to confirm all of those assumptions and when we do that will affect the cost. There were also questions about whether or not some of the improvements that we talked about for a new building at Fort River would apply to a renovation addition essentially bringing the building up. Just to be clear, we would not be moving the existing buildings but there are certainly means that we have available in terms of providing the same level of protection from groundwater whether it's a water and water barrier under the slab where it's changed a topping coating that is waterproof or drainage system within the soil around the building there are things that we could do to make a renovated building just as good as a building in terms of water infiltration from the site. So our logistics question that we got on Wildwood was, is there enough room, it's a it's a smaller site, and the answer is. Yes, absolutely. We've done similar size buildings on much smaller sites. That's not to say that the smaller site is the more complicated the phasing and the more challenging it is for the general contractor or construction manager. But there's no question that the building can be built on this site safely, even with an operating school sharing the site. Another question is, is there an equal amount of outdoor learning space and play structures playground play equipment between the two sites. The site was carried equally. That's not to say that there are different opportunities on the two sites in terms of what can happen, but in terms of what was carried with the PDP. They were equal numbers, and as we develop the program for what actually happens on the sites in terms of outdoor learning and recreation, those numbers will be adjusted. We also got a question on the cost of the photovoltaics that were included in the PDP. For each option we included the same number. And someone astutely pointed out that you will have different energy consumption based on the different mechanical system and building that you choose. So we have a variation in size and therefore cost of the PV array. And we will be talking about that on Tuesday at one actually in the net zero meeting so we do have updates on that already. We will add a series of questions on the test to technical aspects of all of the ground improvement, de watering stormwater management at Fort River. And then we will be addressing those, essentially as we develop the sites. As Donna mentioned, meetings later today that we'll talk about programming, which will affect the layout of the building the shape of the footprint all of that has to happen. Before we can really lay out and get into the details I mean some of the questions are, will the soil have to be improved and do we know exactly how much the answer is there will be further testing at this point we've only performed a few test pits to see where once we know where the building is and the shape of the building there will be further studies that will tell us exactly how much soil improvements and what the foundation conditions will be going forward. So that is a selection of the questions that we can answer definitively now and then as we go through the options and develop the schemes and plans we will be keeping track of all of the questions that we've asked and try to answer them. To the extent possible, as we present. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. I just want to look to the committee whether there are any follow on questions to those answers, or not seeing any hands raised. I know one question, Tim that had to do with the size of the site that I think you'll be addressing is. If you imagine a construction crew coming on site is there enough room at Wildwood and enough room at Fort River to not have to take everything down and put everything up again. Whether it's called staging I'm not sure what the the formal is. So you'll be addressing that as you start to talk about what can go where. We will. And if it is a renovation addition option where that addition ends up being all of those pieces and if it's a new building where the new building ends up on the site if it's tucked into the hill a bit more that frees up a little more flat area but yes. It will be a lot of moving parts over a long construction duration and as as we develop the designs we will certainly talk about what can happen when and what there is room but in general, I mean we have done similar size buildings on sites that are half this size so we can be confident that there is room it's just a question of, making sure that everything is coordinated. Any other questions. No is there. I will send after this. We just settled on a date but on for one o'clock next Tuesday is when we'll be getting information about ground source heat pumps versus air source heat pumps. Initial costs, lifetime costs, and I'm not sure what else but we are also they've been gathering information on the current costs of operating the buildings with the electrical use the oil use and the gas use, because there's, there's potential for significant savings, whichever direction we go when I was looking at the numbers and might just nicely put together the budget for the 2023 schools and lays out for both Port River and Wildwood how much we're spending now and it's it adds up between the two buildings to $350,000 for electrical heat, electrical and heat so it's substantial amount of money that's an annual cost that that's one of the issues we'll be talking about on Tuesday, as part of what the design of this building will be providing to the town of Amherst and to the students and the teachers it'll be better heated, better cooled with more light in it, but next week I think it's going to be very technical. So I'm not seeing any other questions on Angelica has her hand up Angelica. I'm just trying to recall from last to the images that we saw last time and I know that there was a lot of images about what's underground and the two different schools and sort of like the differences in amount of already existing electrical and gas and pipes and I was just wondering about any sort of comparative cost differences that that would go into the final design in terms of like what might what can't be moved and not move what's more underground in one area and not underground in the other area that's one question. And the second question I have is about cost for modular classrooms I think before you mentioned that the MSB a doesn't reimburse for that and so I'm just wondering about about cost that might go into the price of like still keeping you know depending on what it is but still keeping schools going, whether it's in a moderate classroom or in existing classrooms. So, why don't I start with the modular piece and maybe Janisco can comment if they've, if they've really started to dig into this about the utilities. So, I think this is an important touch point. One of the things that I think is embedded in the approach the design approach that denisco is taking is that they are leaving, whichever site they're on they're leaving the existing building in place, and therefore preserving the operations in school and therefore making sure that modular classrooms are not needed for the school to operate going forward. And that is is really great approach, because modular classrooms are expensive, typically, they're temporary, and they go away at the end of the project so you don't get any sort of long term value from them. And perhaps most importantly the MSB a won't reimburse on modular classrooms. So that sort of embed and approach it is embedded but I don't think we've actually spoken about that value directly is, you know, is, I think really a huge piece of, you know, finding the best value option. So does anybody on the Dennis go team. I don't know how much you dug into the utility challenges. But does anybody want to take on that question. I'll let Tim jump in on that but I just wanted to add just to emphasize Angelica that this that would apply for renovation addition or new construction so we would sequence a renovation addition in such a way that we would construct the addition, and then we could move the students right say quad by quad or grade by grade, and then we kind of moved through the entire building so that that the construction duration is larger because you're not doing it all at once it's going to be done in phases but that that's how we've started to think about what goes into the addition in order for this to be a sincerely viable option. And then the only other component to that is we're anticipating that the sixth graders will be out of the school. So we go to into construction so that helps a little bit, but all of these factors will go into it and to echo what Margaret says. It's kind of like dirt no one likes to pay for dirt it's it's a lot of money you'll never really see, but we always end up paying a lot of money for dirt, or what goes into the site but even more so with the portable classrooms because typically you would lease them they they're in the way they take up space on the site that we need, as you can see for for all of the other activities for construction so whenever absolutely possible we stay far away and we believe that we can do that here. Go ahead, Tim. We have started to look at where the utilities are and what coordination will be required with the project with either project, there's going to be utility work on site, one minor difference between the projects is that the utilities for the middle school come through the site for Wildwood from Strong Street so there's a little bit extra coordination that would have to happen but in general, the level of complication and coordination between the sites is similar. Sean. How essential is the second curb cut for the Wildwood project. And I guess have we as a, are you recommending that we do pursue the second curb cut I think it was mentioned in the traffic study. I guess for a school this size of these many students. Have we decided we are going to do that since you mentioned included in the cost estimate or is that still something we need to discuss. That is something that we are going to study as we analyze the sites moving forward you are increasing the population so traffic is only going to get more congested that it currently is, and the existing conditions report that we have from our traffic engineer says that, and I'm sure everyone who's been there has observed that there is a backup on Strong Street. On the site itself it works well currently. But there will be more students and then another aspect to just whether or not it would improve circulation which it would to add a second curb cut and make it better not worse it would have to be a minimum separation the distance between the two curb cuts is critical. And so the current one is all the way to the west on the site and as you go to the east, the grades get particularly steep. So, you might get to a point where you're not far enough away to have a meaningful impact and possibly make it worse, and then you've already gotten to the point where it's so costly because of the grades that it doesn't make sense. So that's what we're going to have to weigh moving forward. Okay, thank you. I just want to follow up on that a little. Paul Paul I know said he was going to have to leave early, but to the extent. If you said either a Waldwood or Fort River, you want to minimize the, the traffic flow out onto the street. If that, if you would you be talking to the 10 engineers so people in Amherst will laugh at this because our, our head of DPW likes to think about roundabouts. So whether there was a way of changing the way the exit from Wildwood intersects with strong street, so that you're always turning right. So there's a roundabout there, or over for river, I think the exit from Fort River when people leaving if they want to turn left is into a traffic flow. So we'll part of what you're looking for is solutions for that moving, moving traffic on and off the site. Absolutely. I mean, there are multiple ways to control traffic. It could be signage and controlling behavior rather than changing the geometry of the intersections and we'll be working with our engineer and TPW to get to the best solution that we can. And Kathy, there's no one answer. We've actually done it multiple ways. We did one project, they completely changed, like they sort of had a little roundabout that they read, they redid everything. And it wasn't, and if once the only other consideration and Margaret can chime in is there may be some improvements that could be done outside of the project because we have limits of work with our project so depending on what the answers are and what the solutions are, there may be just some recommendations even if we aren't at that site that the town may want to consider going forward as well. So we've done significant changes such as putting in new lights or changing an intersection down the street. We've done things as minimally as just putting signs out and trying to manage traffic on the site. And then, and then, you know, our goal is to get all as many cars as possible queuing on the site which would help mitigate some of the issues down the street. So, there's going to be a whole variety of options depending on where we put the building how much, how many cars we can get on the site which will reduce, you know, the backup, etc. So, similar to what we were saying earlier this is sort of going to be a fluid conversation, as we look at all of the options but we will be our power engineering is looking at all of the considerations. And where your pressure points are now and how a new school or additional students may impact that. Thank you. Any other questions as of now. And I guess what when I have done I started to ask it just before we went live although we were live. I think it would be helpful at least it would be helpful for me when you come when we meet again on April 8. If you can kind of lay out timelines for to the extent you can lay out what we're going to be seeing when so that we know how we get to a decision of a preferred in any, in any way that makes sense to you because we've got this short span in my mind of a few meetings in April a few meetings in May and then by June, we need to be down to from four down to one. So just, just laying it out in some way in a document or on a chart on on what you think we're going to be able to do by when. And if it's everything is interactive that's okay I just need to. I'm a step by step way I think. So that I just think that would be useful to the extent you're ready to do that on the next meeting. I'm going to go down to see if there are other questions. I don't see any so I want to make sure if people did read the PDP and have the kind of questions you had Angelica that you just send them in and and put them in a I didn't understand what's underneath Wildwood compared to what's underneath for river how much each of these are levels of water levels or ground levels. And so I encourage people to send those in and then we had discussed coming back to the minutes of last week. I'm not necessarily taking these things in the two orders, but taking a vote on the minutes I want every to show everyone that when the minutes went in the town clerk certified them. I think that was that we took a vote on the minutes, but if people see anything in the minutes or ready to take a vote today one of the things Rupert suggested is that we, when we have a key vote we at least vote to approve them, the minutes, and so I would like to do that. For this set of minutes, before I go to the design criteria. If people ready to take a vote on the minutes. Do I hear a motion to take I'll make a motion to vote on the minutes. This is Rupert all second. Second, or any, any questions or comments on them. Okay, then I'm just going to do a roll call vote so we will record that we voted on this set of minutes, and I'll start with Rupert. Rupert I. Tammy. Angelica. Hi. Jonathan. Yes. Allison. Yes. Mike. Yes. Ben. Yes. And Simone. Yes. Okay, it's unanimous for the people who are here. Yes. Oh, yes. Kathy's a yes. Sean. I miss Sean. I started in the wrong corner. So the other thing I wanted to revisit, I took a look at the criteria and Angelica for you, since you joined us later, you know, and we had a set of criteria to be able to compare the sites choices on some of the initial criteria. You looked at them compared to the 165 the small school were on there because that school didn't work as well. So I took a look at the rose and I thought it would be a good idea to revisit them to get down to a smaller step that will help differentiate between these four and I don't have a suggestion of exactly what to do yet. But I started looking at them and some of the rows seem to be duplications of each other where we talk about outdoor space in more than one part, an education program and other. So I wanted to see if anyone would be interested in working with me to narrow down the list. And if or you could delegate it to me, and I would come with a suggested shorter list in terms of criteria with with some rationale why because I think that will be helpful. As Dinesco starts to prepare information for us, it may be that all four look pretty equal when we look across some of the rows, but it but to the extent we can, we'd like to see one looks better on this one looks better on that so we would get some guidance so that we would have criteria that didn't have everything look the same everything be a yes. I have, if it's helpful I have the last time the last time we looked at this was January 5, I believe, and it was in the January fifth meeting packet. I can pull it up if anybody if you anyone wants to look at it. And at the very least angelic I can send this to you so you know what it is we're talking. I did, I did send it out again we're great. I sent it out as an Excel sheet and I think that would be fine. The one thing that we did that stepped from that first one was was a suggested way of rating them so we had a color scheme that range from very good to pretty good to not so good. So I wasn't going to propose to change that right now. So, so I didn't know whether anyone came with comments now but what I was going to suggest is a way of coming back to the next meeting with starting with that but then a comparison that gets to a shorter set of criteria. And I'm willing to take it on myself, or if someone wanted to work with me to narrow it down, I would be happy, but I just think a small subgroup and to coming back. I mean I can also work with just Margaret to narrow it down. So, I'm opening it up for any thoughts if people had a chance to look at it when I recent it. It looks like no. So I will volunteer. And send it out again. So I'm going to make sure you have it and then what I'll do is come back with a suggested shorter set and I, what I've been looking at is an earlier version from some other school projects and what, what they did. And I, of course, we'll talk with the Dinesco group to make sure we're not missing a piece. One of the things we're going to, the issues we've already raised is phasing, you know how long will a phase take in a duration. There will be some distinct differences between add reno and new on that, but then on new on what, what extent we have to do site work, what extent we have to do something like parking and traffic. So trying to figure out which rows will really at least look different across these four options would be my goal. I also think we, we developed that list before the net zero subcommittee was formed, and I think it would be really helpful to share that with them. If there's time even next week and sort of talk about priorities and ratings with that group, because that, that was sort of a little bit of a brain dump list. I think that's right, technical term. No, and I think that's right Margaret and I actually was when I was looking at our rows. I thought a separate set that would just say evaluating the two systems, because on, it's hard to build any of the buildings could have either of the systems we're talking about so you know having a separate set on making a decision on whether we're going ground source or air source so a set of criteria would be good for that as well. Yeah. And I see Rupert is nodding his head. So, and I know Rupert when you looked at this you said some of the things didn't feel grouped right quite right to you know what's a building and what's a site and what's so that's looking at it then with two sets of eyes. Some of it is the internal systems. Anything else anyone else would like to raise. So we put out the schedule that I sent to everyone on the every two week actually is the one we came up with in January and the one uncertainty was in May the Friday would have been Memorial Day weekend so we talked about that on set on a Wednesday. And I know at least one committee member saying three meetings in June is going to be difficult for them they won't be physically in the country and I think we put three as a possibility. Because that's where we have to look at the document. And then we have to take a vote to submit. So, I think as we go through April and part of may will have a better sense of how much time we need in June, whether it's one, whether it's and the other thing we heard at the last meeting on the PDP that everyone would like to get as much as they could earlier to read it. And so I think one request may be if there are certain chapters or parts of this report that will be prepared earlier and can be read so we don't get the entire document at once. So I think trying to figure out how we honor the getting it soon enough that we can actually read it. But meeting our deadline of having to vote on it so I think we can we can work through trying to figure out the logistics of that. Seeing any other, you know, I posted this as a two hour meeting thinking that would probably be a lot shorter. But if I don't see any other questions or hands up. I'm going to open it up for public comments. I think I went through the agenda probably quicker than I meant to do but do it so I is that all right with the committee at this point to turn to the public. We've got it. So anyone in the public who would like to speak or make a comment. I'm not sure whether you can hear me. I think you can. Yes. Hi, Bruce, you have joined us. I. After the last meeting. Chris Riddle and Rudy Perkins and I had a fairly long conversation about the net zero, but more specifically, trying to understand. I think that Chris had asked questions about why the ground sourced heat pump was was outside the made budget and we didn't know whether that was the entire system or just the well system, the ground connection part of the ground source system. So with that, I, I put together a fairly lengthy summary document comparing the two system options as best I could, and included in that was a basically a cost comparison that tried to understand the premium that you would have to pay in PV to offset the functional difference between a ground connection and an air connection. And I, I guess my question is, I know Kathy that I've sent it to you and to Jonathan, but I don't know whether anybody else has seen it. And my question is more of a request is would it be possible for the entire net zero group to have seen that before next Wednesday because of course I'll have a whole bunch of questions related to whether that document is useful or not, how valuable it is to you as a committee to forming your understandings and engagements and questioning of this go and possibly even actually not possibly but certainly from Dennis goes point of view, there are three or four assumptions in that spreadsheet that I put together. And I don't think I provided the spreadsheet, but I will so that you can check the formulations and so forth if you choose as to how my calculation was was was completed because it seemed to me that for the systems we were talking about that there was something in the vicinity, well it varied obviously between whether how much you attributed the cost of a support structure for a PV system that would cover the, the increment of the extra size of the PV system will be necessary to offset the performance difference between the two systems, whether that's going to be sitting on a roof or whether it's going to be sitting on a much more expensive support structure obviously expected accounts for a fair difference. My calculation was around a quarter of a million dollars it would cost to cover the difference in PV between the performance differences between the source and the ground source system. And I don't know what the cost of the what the cost of the PV or what the cost of the air source system over the ground source system over the air source system will be but that seems to be clearly going to be discussed on next week. So, I would like to be assured that all parties would have had a chance to look at that so when the public comment came next week. It wouldn't be a surprise. I think that's all I need to say. Thank you, Bruce. And just so everyone in the public knows if you send in a document with questions or information, I am forwarding it right away to the Dinesco team so it's, it doesn't just sit in in in my inbox. And one of the presentations next week with the group we have that's been doing modeling is going to address these issues about net zero and the costs. So we can share the document. Yes, Bruce, but I think it's also important that we look at what we're getting directly from the estimating team because some of those questions are going to be answered next week, or at least preliminary answered. So yes, we can share that document. Are there any other public comments. So one of the things I just wanted to say, oh, two, two more. Yes. Okay. I'm going to bring in Chris Riddle. Okay, thank you. Trying to bring in Chris Riddle. There he comes. Okay, Chris, you're here. You can welcome Chris. If you're talking we can't hear you. It looks like he's unmuted, Sean, but I'm, yeah, we can't hear him though. We can't hear you. Why don't I bring in Maria. Oh, there it goes. Okay. Okay Chris, are you there. Hi Chris. I have a few questions really. This one follows up on what Bruce said. Is the intent, is Denisco's intent that the geothermal well field be contracted separately similar to the PV. And if that is that the reason why it's carried below the line. That's a question. Another one is there's another big variable in addition to whether it's geothermal or ground source or air source. And it's what their distribution within the building is it can the two big alternatives are is it hydronic or is it refrigerant is a hydronic or refrigerant the means for transmoving energy around inside the building. That's a question. And the third question is, well, let's see. I may if I had read the whole PDP, which I haven't, maybe the answer is there but do does this go plan to give us a description of what the downsides of renovation are relative to new construction. We have a bullet list of what would be the consequences of using doing renovation, as far as educational needs and so forth are concerned, what's the upsides and downsides of renovation. And lastly is a second curb cut through the middle school, possibly a consideration you that's physically possible to connect the West parking lot from Wildwood to the middle school parking lot. Trying to keep the tennis courts alive. It's, it might somewhat of a challenge but is that is that would that be one of the consideration, one of the options, the alternatives. Those are my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Donna, I see your hand is up, you know, we're going to. Are you trying to reach. Maybe you didn't mean to have it. Well, I'm not. So I, I think we're just taking in all just just wanted to make sure thank you. Okay, so thank you Chris, and those questions have been recorded. And Maria was had her hand up. Yes. Yep, she's here. Welcome Maria. Hi there. So, I want to join Bruce and requesting that the materials that are going to be discussed and the work that has been done since the last meeting be made available. Prior to the meeting on Tuesday and so in other words, not, not to release it on and post it for the public on Monday and for that matter for other committee members on Monday. But if that can be put out today so that people have time to read through it and digest it so we can have a better sense of what we're talking about when we're going in that would be very helpful. And I have a particular question about when we will be seeing and when who will be developing and when will be pricing narrative that's going to be submitted to am Fogarty going to be created and when will we be talking about that as a committee. And the timeframe for having the, the uniform at gossip estimate from am Fogarty presented that's obviously going to make a big difference and be very helpful in making any kind of decisions and about ground sourced versus air sourced all sorts of things so when is that going to be made available. I also saw on the agenda for the meeting on Tuesday, possibly taking a vote about ground versus air sourced so I hope that's not the case because there's obviously a lot that this committee hasn't talked about and that zero committee hasn't talked about so I'm hoping that that is. That is an error. Thank you. Thanks, Maria. And I think there was one more. Is that right, Sean. There aren't any, aren't any hands up right now. Okay, so Rudy had had his hand up, but maybe he took it down. Thank you, everyone. The Dinesco team has heard all the questions and the repeated request to get materials as much in advance as we can. I just want to assure everyone I, I did the agenda for next week just on this question of a vote. I put it there was a question mark, just on any that committee is just an advisory committee and we would bring anything back. But if we're not ready we won't take a vote. I think we're all in a gathering information and I was informed by Dinesco that there's no need to make a decision about this yet. So we don't, there's no rush to understanding the implications is going to be more important than making a decision right away. I think we are ready to adjourn, if, unless I see any final comments and Jonathan is chair of the net zero committee so I'm going to let you run next the next committee. Jonathan completely on what will be likely be a much more technical discussion before we can get to something that people like me can completely understand so it would, it will be great. So thank you all for joining us this morning and moving on to what I think will be the next much more exciting. I found it all exciting phase when we're actually looking at some designs and buildings, and it's going to feel like a real school to us as we're narrowing on which of these four choices, we think is the best. I wish you all a happy weekend and declare the meeting adjourned at 932. Thank you.