 Good morning, everyone. It is, as Margaret said, amazingly, July 29th or whatever date we're at. On Monday, it will be August. Monday will be August. This is the elementary school building committee. And we do have a quorum, so I'm going to open the meeting, but I know at least one person said they'd be a bit late. So I will first go around the room and call out names to make people sure people can hear and we heard we still are under the new governor's orders that allow us to be continued to meet by zoom until next year, correct, Paul, 2023. So I am going to do a roll call vote of the names I see and just indicate that you can hear and be heard. Sean. Mike. Yes. Paul present. Tammy. Tammy, you need to unmute and then. Yes. Okay. Phoebe. Yes, hi. Hi, Simone. Yes. I didn't hear from anyone that they wouldn't be coming. So I think others will be joining us a little bit later on the market. If you want to start us off with today's agenda and Tim, Tim had told us one of the items on the agenda we won't be doing. So when you show the agenda, we can just note that. I'll turn it over to you. Okay. So we're going to start the meeting off by picking up where we left off last time with looking at the sustainability rating systems. So, which is a lot of acronyms, which hopefully after with this conversation, you'll be more familiar with. I think that's going to give a bit of an update on some design work they're doing. Just to jump in that that's the point that Kathy was speaking to it's not going to be building plans. There are a few site plans that would like to talk about. Exactly. And then we're going to revisit the, what was the bulk of last meeting is conversation about procurement. A few of us were able to visit schools Wednesday, and we'll get a report on that in voices. And that's it. So, one thing just quickly to flip to so we are here in the schedule that Dennis go ahead drafted originally so Tim and Rick and Viviana and Donna I think this item on the ground source versus air source is moving to a future meeting. Right. Correct. That will not happen until at least we have the next net zero meeting which is scheduled for Thursday. Yeah. Okay. And this is a reminder this list of tentative schedule topics is in the packet from the last month's last meeting. So, okay. So I just want to add to what Tim said I did send everyone that. And I see, Ben is here Ben, could you just height, let us make know you can hear him be heard. Yeah. Great. And, and so I just want to say that there is a meeting of the net zero committee as Tim just said next Thursday, August 4th, and I sent everyone the agenda for that. A pretty good discussion with some updates, and I'll post them good news from ever source. If we continue to target an EUI of 25 we get a substantial construction incentive they'll be tough on making sure we can get there. But, but when I said substantial well over a million dollars toward the construction costs. So that will be part of the discussion anyone who's not on the subcommittee, it might be something that you would want to come in on. So I will stop talking now. And I think it's, it's you Donna and your team talking about lead and the rating system rating system options for sustainability. Thank you. Good morning everyone. I'm going to let Tim go ahead and talk about it. I'm going to share my screen and jump right in. Yes, I can. Whoops. Now it's gone. Tim, do you have a PDF of that? I'm switching to the PDF from there. Yes, thank you. All right. So jumping in the two systems that we can use to document. The performance of sustainability. Of buildings in general and school specifically are lead. And chips of chips is collaborative for higher performance schools that varies by region of the country we would be in the New England. Regent and leaders. Leadership. Energy and rental design. Lead is. Originally developed for building in general and was made specific to various sectors. School is being one of them also hospitals, commercials. But it is widely used and chips is specific for schools. Tim, sorry, just just to give everyone just to just step back one second. MSBA requires that the project be certified either they support lead and chips. So either way, it's a requirement and we understand that Amra supports doing this regardless. So I just want to say that MSBA supports both. Yes, there's a method to the additional MSBA incentive through either there is not a required level of certification with either, but you have to be the base level plus a certain energy performance in addition to that. Base level of certification with either rating system. So there are two levels in chips, which is verified and verified leader and then in the certified silver gold or platinum. And rating systems are similar. But there are also quite a bit of differences between them. There are more points in ship. So it gets into a little bit finer level of detail. There are also more prerequisites. So items that absolutely have to be hit. Otherwise, you don't get certified. There are no prerequisites that we wouldn't be intending or expect to achieve. Some of them are a little bit difficult, like acoustic performance of the building in ships. And there's a little cost associated. So there is a discussion of which points you would always go after with the building. And so there's marginally less flexibility with the chips. And the infrastructure associated with lead is somewhat more road plus in terms of filing for credits filing documentation. There's an online portal. There is a wide base consultants that are very familiar with it. And any contractors that are working in the MSBA market are going to be familiar with lead. I don't want to say that chips is unknown, but it is certainly less known and a bit more of a process to get all of the players at the table to file over the documentation that was required with chips. And then sorry, Tim, just to add the cost to register and go through the process you have to submit design and then construction and there's a fee associated with those. The costs to are similar. They are similar and then the building that you will end up with will be almost identical, probably would be identical depending on the rating system that is chosen. Difference is that there are more points in the chip systems that are related to operations and policies of the occupants of the school. That includes training for occupants to use the systems in the building as prerequisites. Integration of the curriculum with the building elements display of the performance of the building is another point that is required in chips. These can be in lead as part of innovation credits, but they are not required. So that's just one of the aspects where the chips system is a bit more specific to schools. And then lead the breakdown of where the points are allocated are different. You can see here that in lead, sustainable sites, location and transportation and regional priority, those are all related to where the site is. So, you know, over a quarter of the points available are related to site location and site selection, whereas that's closer to 9% in chips. And that's due to the fact that lead was developed for buildings in general, and it was designed to promote sustainable development by site selection and reuse, which is less of a factor in schools. As you get to the breakdown of the other points, you can see that energy is a little over a quarter in both of the models. Materials and resources and indoor environment quality sort of overlap in the points that are available in both rating systems. And then innovation in the lead system sort of is a catchall that includes some of the operations and maintenance things that are required in chips. This is a great diagram. Tim, I've never seen this before, but it's really helpful. It shows the two different approaches to where you can get the points and, you know, what is the focus but at the end of the day, the energy and the quality is over half in both rating systems. Too bad the colors aren't the same in the two different times. I was just going to say the same thing. It was a little confusing and I'm sorry for that but there isn't a one to one, and I tried to get it and then. Yeah, I'm sorry about that for a while. I'm sorry. Okay. Kathy your hand is up. Yeah, I just have a question. Tim for you. So one has water and one has water efficiency would you just. What is water when they're looking at it is that like low force toilets. Yeah, so they're there. There's water in the building and there's water on the site but the fine breakdown of the points. But it is low flush toilets. It's irrigation, it's management of rainwater. It falls under site, but it is those elements of water that it is measured. And can you say the same on indoor air quality is that air exchange. Do they windows that open what what's in what's in indoor air quality, besides your exchange. Yeah. There are several elements one, the OCS. So paints, adhesives, things like that. There's also a particular matter that level of filtration and there are. And that also relates to materials, but they all of the things that you mentioned, air changes, operable windows are measured in various parts of the lead system. As well as acoustics. Yeah, acoustics is a big one as well. And lighting views are other elements that contribute to indoor environment quality. Thank you. This is just an example of some of the credit metrics we've spoken about daylight a lot. And so just to bring up the minutiae of one of the points so you can see an example. And this is not the full credit language, but only the mean of it. For day lighting in lead, you have to achieve a certain level of day lighting. A certain distance above the floor for a certain amount of time. And it's 300 blocks at three feet above the floor, which basically translates to whether you can read at a desktop surface without artificial lights on in the room. And you can either do that by calculating it with a computer simulation or at certain times of the year go in with a physical light meter and measure it. And whether you get 55 or 75 or 90% of the floor, you get a different number of points. So total of three points available for this or five points in ships. The metrics are slightly different, but very close. And then I, you know, I go through the detail of this to point out that for those of you that were on the tour. Wednesday. There were classrooms that were more light filled and less light filled. But none of them would meet the criteria set forth here as a frame of reference. So I just, you know, as we get into a more meaningful discussion of day lighting next week and strategies and what we actually think a good way to measure quality of day lighting in a classroom is we can speak about that related back to this and why, or why not, we will be pursuing some of these points. Yeah, and just to add to this, you know, really the doubles and the details Tim, Tim was trying to suggest here and so what we find with a lot of our clients is we still focus on the intent of some of the points that were unable to achieve given the specific documentation or calculations, etc. So, neither chips or lead, you know, take take a global approach they really get into some minutia that almost makes some of these very difficult to achieve one one other one is the on demand credit which you think would be something that we would be able to achieve. But in the end, it really becomes a sticking point with certain functions of the building, for example, on demand is you have to adhere to ever source. If they say there's a brown out. And so what that's telling you is you're giving them control to shut down your building a certain part certain times, whether you have a program in there this just happened at one of our, for one of our clients they ever source was brown out, shut down the building, and they had a program in school last week or two weeks ago during the heat wave, and they shut the air conditioning off so so again, devils in the detail where sometimes it's just not prudent to pursue some of the credits. Tyler was that a school that that happened out. Yep. Yep. So, so when you slide up, you got to be careful, you know, what what you're agreeing to so that on demand was ever source was having a brown out. Normally it doesn't affect schools but you could see the other day, you build that they will come and you will use these spaces year round. And normally lots air conditioning it's summer. It's really just administration that's in the building well that's not the case anymore so when, whenever source says brown out, we're shutting down your electricity or reducing it to 75%. You're, you have to shut up the air conditioning so again, with other clients they say okay we agree to this in concept but we need to control when we can shut the building down and or turn down the electricity to heat the building or cool the building and will be responsible for making that decision so I again. It's just, it's just the devil's in the detail when we start looking at these credits to make sure that you understand what you're agreeing to. And then just an overall of the pros and cons of the various systems before we just go through an example scorecard that was included in the PSR. In the ships it's school specific it was designed and created by people with schools in mind the cons are related to a higher number of prerequisites. I mean, there's no wiggle room on some of the points. They are certainly all achievable points, but there are realities of budget and construction that sometimes you want some flexibility to deal with these things. The review is a bit more intense. A little more a few more points often get missed through the review process with chips than with lead. And they don't have the infrastructure that lead does as a national body that many more buildings go through. So the reviews tend to be longer. Some of the pros of lead is the brand. It's it allows people to know that you're pursuing a sustainable building. The documentation process as I mentioned is a bit more streamlined and more familiar with all of the people contractors owners design professionals that have to engage in the process. But there are on the downside of. Lead there are a lot of credits that are unavailable simply by the nature and location of the project. And we can get into that as we go through the score card. This is the scorecard that was submitted with the PSR. You can see that the points allocated. Are broken down by the categories that are in the chart. And start with location and transportation. There are a lot of points that we are not achieving that is simply because we. Are building on a suburban site. The density is simply not there to support. What lead would expect to award some of these credits. And that's not to say that. That's a good or a bad thing. There are the last project that we did in Springfield to get some of these credits and that's certainly a much higher density. There will certainly be electrical vehicle charging. So we'll get that. Some people question why we don't get bike facilities credit to get that credit you have to. Have a shower in the building, which we don't have and you also have to be connected to a systems of bike paths or roads with dedicated bike lanes or limited speed limits. So there are, it's just one example of a credit where many things are simply out of control of the project and not available. Under sustainable sites. There is a bit more that is our troll and we get many more of the points where we expect to. And they are related to the design of the building rather than the location of the building or the surrounding environment. Open space is the amount of project area that is developed for building occupied and. I'll certainly get that point out free and water management is no. And you would think that with all of the attention that we're paying to storm water and water on the site that we would be performing well and we are performing well, but to get these credits. The way it's written in lead, you basically have to have the site performance if there was no building on it at all. And that becomes very difficult. There is a light pollution heat island reduction, which is limited to low colored, bright light colored pavement and light colored group. These are things that are under control of our design and we can do that joint use of facilities is one that we will certainly get with all of the use of the building. Water efficiency to get to have this question here are some of the things that are there. We typically get into a word of use. We specify the fixtures that are required to get this point. It is likely that there will not be process water. So that's 1 reason we won't be getting that point. Energy and atmosphere. We will do very well in this category. Based on the town's net zero by law and the priorities that you have stated for the project. Grid harmonization is the credit that. Don just refer to in terms of. Demand load. And renewable energy with the amount of PV that will be included in the project. We will most likely get all of the points available. Under materials and resources. And indoor environmental quality, you know, with our experience of materials that we use in schools and the process, this is what we expect. To reasonably achieve. Obviously, all of the materials haven't been chosen yet. But we will choose them with these factors in mind. I'll point to the win only and that some of you saw on Wednesday, that is a natural based material that allows us to get some of these credits. And then we're. Rounding out the lead scorecard is innovation and regional priority where we will be able to get some credits innovation would be. Integrating the building and its use into the curriculum, things like outdoor planter gardens. And the energy use of the building itself and regional priority while not filled out. The USGBC has. Essentially, a certain number of credits that count extra in certain areas and in the new England region. And the global energy is 1 of them, so we'll probably getting points there, but we don't know until we design, but there are likely a few more points on the table in regional priority. And so that brings us to 64 points puts as well within gold. And that is a conservative estimate of. Where we look, we can, you know, do a projection of what we would. With chips, but it would most likely be verified not verified leader, but certainly well within what you would get or need to get the MSBA requirement for the additional. That's big picture view of lead verse chips and then some of the points we'll go into specifically in next week within that zero subcommittee. I don't think we. We need a decision today on a point system, but it's something we can think about and if there are any questions we can get back to. What's the cost of each of the programs. So, so, well, the cost to register and go through the design and then the construction is really. It's the square footage times a percent off top my head. I'm going to say it's about 20, 20,000 Paul 15 to 20,000 off top my head and price. I'm sorry. They're about the same price or ones. Yeah, yeah, they're about the same price but but what that's the cost to register it and get your certification. When people say lead is expensive or it adds cost to the project lead or chips will add cost to the project. But that that's because we're doing certain things inherent in the design of the project or the building to achieve those credits right or to achieve a certain level of certification. What we're finding is that that's really integrated into the design anyway so we would want to achieve a lot of the credits anyway but the actual expense to register and get certified is somewhere between. I'm going to say 100 is somewhere between 1520,000. I'm sorry. There's also a real administrative cost of contractors for the work that they have to do. And in the schedule of values we typically ask each of these sections to have a lead submission or basically break down the cost to submit and upload the documentation that's necessary during construction contractors are required to do indoor air quality plans that they wouldn't have to do on a lead building submit them and maintain and provide documentation. So there's a little bit of construction cost involved to apart from the design effort. We have to do MSBA says we have to do one of these two things where you're saying administratively leads as easier it's more familiar doesn't is anybody choosing chips. Very, very few. I think, and I don't really know we were looking for schools to go visit. We were finding that Jones with said architects tends tends to favor chips, but other than that. When I was looking at everyone's projects we were finding 90% are on are utilizing lead. And it's more recognizable to the community to right. You know, understand and no lead and understand that that's all related to sustainability. So there's a little more unknown factor and builds a little more credence to the, to the project. Thank you. And you get a pretty plaque at the end. Yeah, I want to do two things one Rupert, Elisha and Jonathan are here so I just want to make sure that they can hear and be heard that they've joined the meeting. So Rupert, if you could unmute. Hi everybody. Sorry. Welcome. Elisha. Hello everyone, I can hear you thank you. Great and Jonathan. I can hear you. You can hear me. Yeah, we can hear you. So I wanted to build on Paul's question on costs. It sounded to me there. There is a labor cost to the town on chips. When you went through that the town is has to file some policies that they certify we would adhere to and there's some additional it just that one little graph. I had one is it was kind of easy to upload information and one is a lot of document whenever I see anything that's a lot of documentation. It says to me labor costs. Is that true. Did I read those correctly. So that when I say labor discussions time, time, time is what I'm looking at time, not necessarily price tag. You are correct. You're talking about staff time for the town staff time, exactly staff time. Yeah, staff time, whether it's design team staff time or town, town team staff time. Yes. Am I reading that correctly it says significant policy operation requirement often requires school board policies. I was reading that to be something beyond what we've already written in the education plan. But maybe I'm misreading it. An example would be, there has to be a policy written that would be submitted that outlines that the buildings are going to be cleaned with sustainable cleaners. There has to be a policy that elements of the building and its operation are integrated into the curriculum. If those policies or documents don't exist. They will have to be generated yes and submitted by the town so there is certainly some time involved with the users of the building town employees that would be part of using the chip system as opposed to lead. Just to build on what Tim said under under lead and innovation. Very often you already have a policy on no smoking everybody's got it because it's a state reg integrated cleaning you likely already have and you can get innovation credits for it. The integrating curriculum. There can be a lot of work. There's some others that can be considerable work and takes review, but the, the district policy portions of chips have all been very very easy in the project projects and already in place in the projects that we've submitted in chips. Chips early. I'm sorry lead sorry. Just to build from that as well is that even if you don't so oftentimes we would submit a letter with the district's letterhead basically confirming that these policies are in effect so it's a fairly simple documentation it's just a little bit of back and forth so it's not very I think the difference in what we're saying is typically we still strive to integrate it into the curriculum to do other things in order to it. They're not required but in order to get certain points. We do these things with lead, where with chips, it's mandated it's a their prereqs, which, which is a little different and there are times that we achieve the level that we need the extra two points for a full science program, including all the sustainable is not required so we don't have to ask staff to develop a curriculum that will support sustainability. It's not to say you don't want to do it, but it's at your leisure and you can incorporate it when you want to so I think ultimately what we're saying is there will be support from the design Rupert's team 100% but the level of detail that's required for chips is a it's mandated and be it's it's more formalized. Thank you. Is there any difference between the two reading systems in terms of measurement and verification after the fact. The only, as part of the energy and atmosphere, there's a commissioning component. And so, thanks to the MSBA, they're awesome that they have enhanced commissioning built into the project that they pay 100% for Rupert. If you weren't in the MSBA program and wanted to achieve this, the commissioning would be an added expense but with MSBA. It's, it's part of your project and so. Yeah, so we will actually get I don't know the chips points but for lead will get automatically six points and energy and atmosphere for the commissioning, which is great. Is there a way to sort of integrate it with the requirements of the net zero bylaw in terms of commissioning I know that that bylaw has some. Yeah, just commissioning requirements after the building's done and then some, some, some other requirements after the building's completed. Are the ways are either one of these programs overlap more with what's in the net zero bylaw. They do overlap. That is to say that the commissioning will satisfy the requirements of lead and the net zero bylaw. There wouldn't be separate commissioning bodies that would address both. The only thing, Tim, that we need to verify is the level of detail required for the PVs because I don't know if MSBA, they should as part of the commission support the PVs but typically they come after the project. You can be challenging Donna, you're right because the standard contract that MSBA gives to all commissioning projects no matter what the district is pretty typical. And I don't think that the PEBs are on it. Yeah, but the G the ground source of the geothermal would be because that's part of your system. But either way, you, you're, we're going to want to commission the PV so whether it's an expense for a lead or chips that we're going to have to just verify MSBA will either pay for it or not. Are there any other questions or comments. I'm just looking for hands. I guess the only one I have. You said chips is not used as often. Have you ever in Dinesco use chips or do you always use lead. Yeah, we years ago. It was actually not knowing when chips it was mass chips. So we used it on several schools in the early 2000s we do it. We also used to be able to to obtain a higher rating with chips when it was an Adreno. Yeah, they just gave more points to that. But New England chips. It's kind of morphed from the mass chips program that goes all the way back to like I think 2000, but, and it's trying to align itself more closely to lead. So last the chips project down it was 13. There was the middle 10. Yeah, yeah. And prior to that we had done a middle 10 elementary school right now. They're both in 13. Yeah. Um, I guess I'm wondering, given that we are a school, and if chips is geared towards schools and maybe not just for us but in general, why would it be that schools would choose lead over chips if it's specifically geared towards a school building is that just because it's a little bit more stringent in terms of those policies you were talking about. Um, lead has, as Tim was saying they have a residential commercial, maybe even health care, and then schools. They have a lot of labs so so we would be registering lead under lead dash s which is for schools. And so they try to tell her a little bit more to schools. Um, the difference Phoebe is that chips is mandating you do certain things where lead gives you that option to do various things but we always try to maximize the credits and all of those as Tim was alluding to fall under this innovative design credits where you can pick up additional credits for integrating it into the curriculum or as Rick mentioned, making sure there's a no smoking policy. You know, some of them are kind of silly but or making sure that your cleaning supplies are all green, right. So, chips makes it more mandated where lead gives you the option. I'm not seeing any other questions Tim you said you're going to come back to some of the sustainability issues around day lighting next week. So I can't remember when I did the agenda. I might have said and other issues to leave you. Did I say it more of it. It's always there. Yeah, okay, so, so I think one of the things we talked about. I'm going to say we can move to the next agenda item but one of the things we talked about when we were looking at the two schools is the sense of daylight and the sense of control of lighting. And so if we could talk about that next week it would be great you know what, what choices do we have as we're thinking of the design of the school if if we want to maximize the fact that a lot of things can happen on a sunny day without the lights on or in the classroom in the places that have windows clearly, you know, as opposed to places that don't. It would be great if we can expand on that to sort of you can talk about the two buildings, or if there are any other buildings we can see, because it's helpful. I found it really helpful to see, see places to understand what might or might not be possible. I think we absolutely understand the importance that daylighting has to Amherst and we 100% support it. Again, it's just making sure that we meet all of the other criteria of the, you know, the low EUI and all of that. Even if we collectively choose not to achieve certain lead or chips credits, we still want to do the best we absolutely can, as far as daylighting is concerned. So is everyone ready to move to the next topic which I, yes, is contracting, correct. It's the one we heard an explanation and you need, I think you're asking for a decision from us whether we're doing design bid build, or construction manner at risk. I don't, I think we don't have anything more to present on that so I think this is a good time to do it because as the designers really set to on updating design we're going to get into the start to really get into more detailed design so this is a good day to do it if we can take it up today. Margaret, also I think there's paperwork that needs to be done and you have to go to the AG's office so and that takes time and we do need the state's approval to move with the CM at risk so the sooner we can do it the better if that's the preferred solution or method. Well, yes and no I mean the real timeline issue that AG's previously approved a CM at risk for this project. So, the timeline, the timeline issue is that we really want to have the CM on board as soon as possible so we would want to start the procurement. The procurement timeline which is as I mentioned a previous meeting. It's a two step process so first there's a qualifications procurement, and then there's a some short list of those who respond provide competitive pricing for their general conditions as a second step that will take that that will take a couple months if the committee decides I want to pursue that step and the sooner we have the CM on board the sooner they're able to add value to the schematic design process. So as chair I'm just going to ask Paul and Sean if you have any thoughts or have been discussing this I mean I think all of us saw that in the estimates that we had from the cost estimators there's a price difference. There wasn't a rounding error of difference, it was in the millions so I just any thoughts on it, either one of you. Yeah, I mean, go ahead. Is it okay if I just make a motion. And then we can. So, I moved that the committee move forward with the design bid build option for selecting a contractor. Second. Who seconded it. Oh, okay. I'll just say quickly, you know, my reasons are I think as Kathy alluded the cost is quite a bit lower and we know cost is going to be a key component for this project. And I heard a lot of confidence from the design team with the specific project that they feel comfortable with that option. I think the expectation with any option we pick is that we're going to get a you know really high quality building. And so the design teams confidence I feel confident. Does anyone want to speak to that on a yes spot or yes in favor Mike. I just want to support Sean's motion. You know we want the best building right channels in the financial side I'm more on the educational side but that those two. It's not a it's a false dichotomy right they affect one another. And if we are able to have an effective building being built in a model that puts money instead of being into the construction piece but into the the 50 year use of the building and the things that the community is asking for I think that's the way to go so I just want to support Sean's motion. Thank you. Jonathan. And with what's been said already I'm very comfortable with the project moving forward as a design bid bid design bid build contracting approach. Rupert. I would also like to support the motion. It's my feeling that the more people who are actually building the building can be involved. The better the product in general. And I think it's a good idea. Thank you. I don't have any other hands but I'll just, I thought one of the things that was stressed in the presentation that the construction manager matters in both. And so that making sure we have a construction manager who's familiar with the pieces of the project, including the geothermal if we go that route will be important. Yes, I'm in favor of this motion TV. I think I'm in favor of this motion I would like to ask one last time before we officially vote on this. Both for the designers as well as the rest of the committee, if anyone has significant second thoughts about this and why. There are any. I just want one last opportunity for for to, you know, to hear people say one way or another. Thanks. Yeah, so just just from our perspective, we do both. I would say we're probably 50 50 CM versus hard bid. I think you have great experiences with both, and you can not have a good experience with either. And really it's incumbent upon the design team with the support of the opm to just hold people accountable for what they own. And our construction documents are so well documented, and we enter construction with a not adversarial relationship with the contractor where always we this is a partnership or a marriage for two plus years right so we always go into it, looking forward to working with these contractors so Danisco is 100% comfortable going with design bid built. If this was a different project if it was a renovation addition, that would be a different story especially if there were students in the building, but we don't see a huge value add to a construction manager with this project. Margaret. Well, I want to see if any of the committee members have anything to say first. I'm not seeing any other hands up Margaret so I think. Okay. We've actually done much more CM at risk work than design bid build work but that has been because many of our projects have been on really tight urban sites and have not there hasn't been the opportunity to keep a whole school in the sort of operational while a building was built adjacent to it. So, as I said, at the presentation two weeks ago I think the complexity here is really in the building systems, and I am supporting this approach because I think that this isn't every project that matters. I do think we may want to provide some more capacity on our side, in terms of oversight of the design and installation of the geothermal and pole and solar systems, but I think this is a really good approach. We may bring someone else onto our team, bottom line in order to help make sure that all of that is thoroughly coordinated. Thank you both. I'm not seeing any other hands up for discussion so I think we can move to a vote, and I will. I can do actually I can do it in alphabetical order. I have that list. So I'll do that so I don't miss anybody of the people here and in this case, a yes or an aye vote would be for design bid build. Yes. Simone. Yes. Allison is still absent. Ben. Yes. Sean. Yes. Phoebe. Yes. Mike. Yes. Rupert. Yes. Jonathan. Yes. Kathy say yes. Tammy. Yes. And Alicia. Yes. It's unanimous with two absent. Anonymous yes with two absent. So thank you. So a next on our list is reports on the site visits. One was in Lexington, two different architects. The second school that went in Lexington. It was the Dinesco team and Vivian was the lead on it. And I just, I want to start out by thanking. The design team because everybody came. And it was really useful to be able to be asking questions after. Between and amidst on why was one school this way or that. We didn't organize a. Our thoughts. So I thought what I might do. If, if Tammy. Both Tammy. It was on the trip as was Phoebe, as was I. And then. Let me just think. And Mike. So there are four of us who were on the trip in addition to, we had. One of our frequent. Public commenters as an architect. Bruce Bruce came on. So Bruce will probably make a comment during that public comment period. But I don't know whether anyone wants to lead off on thoughts. On, on site visit. And we can. Write these up. We just didn't coordinate enough. And we took a lot of pictures. So we were thinking we would create a little picture, picture book too of things we particularly liked. In either building. Or, or didn't like in either building or combos that we were thinking about. So my Tammy or Phoebe. Do any of you want to. Raise your hand and. Mike. Here we go. Yeah. Just summarize some of my thoughts. A couple of take homes for me. One was the schools weren't the same size. They were similar size and the overall scheme of things, but I experienced them as feeling very different in terms of the size and scope of the school. I think one of the bill. And I'm trying to be intentionally. Big because I'm not trying to critique, you know, designer, any, you know, school. Or school community, but. You know, that was one of my learnings that day was the design really influences the feel. Second was really about color. And that's connected to the first, but not the same as the first. They were really different. Viewpoints one, you know, on the flooring, they both had the same general product, but one had a tiled product. Which I think my friends, Rupert, you know, like, because if it gets damaged, then you just replace a tile of it. Even though it's that soft materials, not like a ceramic tile. One was kind of a flat surface. And so, you know, another one of my learnings was really thinking through the. You know, we had finance. Excuse me. Facilities folks on each of the tours and hearing from them about what was the lived experience of being there. That was another one. I think that was the first one. How was the living experience of being there? That was another one. One of the schools had a really large. Space in the hallway for that kind of, kind of small group space and the other one, much more like birth thinking about how the small, smaller, more frequent areas. And any reservations I had about having smaller, more frequent spaces is gone because. The large area just, it didn't feel like it worked. people a sense of that taken half an hour, the location of where the library, you know, gym, all those things are, I think when we revisit that, I think, you know, I got a better appreciation for some of the implications, particularly as it relates to community use, and how you can lock off a building. bathrooms is another one that was interesting, both buildings had doorless bathroom entries, they slight differences about that, but the sort of the airport style. But the design really worked. You know, you know, it sounds funny to people, perhaps, but I thought that worked well, they had one of the schools for their kind of space for deescalation had a window where the light could be turned on where it was transparent, or could be turned off where it was opaque to provide privacy, and depending on the moment, and just having that flexibility was a feature that stood out to me. And it was great to have Yvette, who's our specialized special education person there, just started, but has a lot of experience in the field, offered her able, able to offer her insights. And then the last thing I'll say, just the exterior space, you know, I strongly favorite one versus the other. For a couple of reasons, one the flow, I think I was walking with Tammy and Tammy rightfully was saying, Where could one teacher be and see kids doing different activities from a supervision perspective? And there was a real difference there. Also outdoor learning spaces that weren't play spaces, but, you know, truly for more classroom or smoke group activities were different. And then the the other thing I'd say is, one of the outdoor spaces was really well designed for year round use. The reality is, close to half the year in New England, it's going to be messy outside for kids to be out. And one had really thought through and purchased a machine that would clear off some hard space, you know, that so this person said it's never a problem, they do it all the time. And it doesn't damage the kind of flooring and the images of like four square courts and all that. And, and one had a sort of a soft turf field that also could be used throughout the winter and cleared off. And it wasn't like something you think about it like a high school with a soccer field or football field, but it provided year round access for physical exercise. And that was really appealing to me because we know, you know, research as well as lived experience tells us that that physical exercise in the winter is really crucial. And having capacity to pull that off is really important. So that was really quick. But that's like the summary of sort of my reflections and learnings that did write up some notes afterwards, which I'm reading off of summarizing anyways, right now. But it was a really second Kathy's thoughts is really great experience. And I think Margot was on the call our intern here in the summer. So thank you, Margot, because it's great having someone with fresh eyes on it. I think I'm sorry, one other thing that I just want to note, more for Rupert and Ben, but for everyone aesthetically, but also maintenance wise was the exterior materials. One school had a lot more either wood or wood looking material on the outside and one didn't have that model. And I think that will be something that the community really will want to weigh in on because it really was both were beautiful on the outside. And they weren't similar, like you wouldn't get confused. If you saw a picture of the school, you go, oh, I'm at that one. I'm at, you know, it wasn't, there was no, there was no, oh, they looked the same, not at all. And so that brought in my scope in terms of the decisions that this committee will will be engaged in making. Phoebe, I hope everybody can hear me. I'm also working right now, so I'm outside. So I wholeheartedly agree with, you know, pretty much everything Mike said, what was so interesting to me, as having this be the first time that I have gone and been able to see not just the outside of the school, but the inside of the school was how very different they were. So the two schools had a lot of similar features. But how they incorporated those features into the design for that specific school felt very different. For instance, like Mike was saying, the, you know, the, I don't know what they call them, but the common, more common, like shared spaces, like in between the classrooms kind of thing. Those were very different spaces at one school, they were giant and wide open to like the hallways. And at the other school, they were still, still open spaces, a little bit smaller shared between fewer classrooms. But there was also a separation. So, you know, I have a nine year old and I can imagine something being as big and wide open as one of the schools, you know, the distraction factor for a child who's trying to do some small group work or group with a class, you know, work with a class or something like that. You know, it was differences like that that really stood out to me. I actually found, I think they, I know that the first school we saw was about 92,000 square feet, I forget what the second one was. But I was struck when we got to the second one because of the orientation of the building. It didn't look as giant as the first one did until you until we got outside and went to the back of the building and then you could see the entire expanse of the building. But that was something that really struck me like it can be a giant 100,000 square foot school and it doesn't have to look like 100,000 square foot school from depending on how it's laid out on the site. I, I, you know, I obviously am not somebody who's going to be doing recess duty and that kind of stuff. But there was definitely the difference in the outdoor space in both of the schools was, was a little bit shocking to me. I definitely favored one over the other. And it was incredibly illuminating to be able to talk to Tammy about it, what, what kinds of things she was looking for as somebody who, who is doing that on the regular basis out watching many kids on the playground. But also because we have a site that is not just used for kids to play at recess, it really is a site that our community uses for a number of things. And so to be thinking about how we can both best use it for in school times for kids at recess for break times, things like that, that also make it easier and more convenient for teachers and staff. And at the same time, you know, mesh that very well with how the community then will use the additional fields and everything else. That's something that I want to when we get to that point, think very sort of clearly and really spend a lot of time there. And I also think one of the things that I said, I think to both Donna and Margaret, when we were looking at outdoor space was like, we should, you know, I said to them, have you seen the new Groth park? Or, you know, I mean, I think that we could take some time and look at what works and what doesn't work for outdoor spaces around us. Because I think that we're lucky enough to have a lot of outdoor space in our town and surrounding towns that we can take some examples from. And so you know, being able to do that, I feel like would be would be really fantastic. But overall, it was really nice to have the two different schools to look at as long of a day as that was, it was nice to be able to see the two to be able to to almost pick and choose and say, you know, I really like the way that this library was laid out. Or I really like the way that this cafeteria was was oriented. And to be able to sort of, in my own mind, figure out why this would work better than that to be able to then come back and and really talk about those things in in layout and everything else. That was it. Thank you. Tammy. So I feel really lucky because I've gotten to visit Springfield and now Needham and Lexington. And I have to say that, you know, just upon entering the school, the Needham School just had that wow factor, wow, I'm so more special kind of feel to it. And so I'm going to try and be as brief as possible, and also organize my thoughts simultaneously and try not to repeat anything. But it did make me feel special walking into that building. And at the same time, a lot of the design elements were incorporated a lot of like the outside, including the inside tiling was to mimic like birch trees, which I thought was fascinating. So one of the differences I noticed between the Lexington and the Needham School was just like the interior design. I think the Needham School allowed like had the the walkways within the building was much more leading and allowed for students to really orient themselves in the hallways, which which I thought was a really fascinating way to design that. I think that the walking into the Lexington School felt a little the way the office was designed felt a little more cumbersome to me. But I do in terms of the internal structures, I really like the Lexington School in terms of how the community learning areas were designed, allowing for people to still be in the walkways, but not to distract from the learning that might might be going on in sort of a common area. I like the the amount of student artwork that occurred the solar parking. I felt that the the design of the outside for either student pickup or bus was was a strength at the Lexington School. I also the other big thing that I noticed between the two schools was the lighting and the shifting between I felt that the Needham School did many of the shades were open and they were or at least it felt like they were open and they you could really see the outside and the beauty of the outside versus at the Lexington School, I felt like a lot more of the classrooms had their shades closed and it particularly bothered me in the art room, because I felt like when you're doing art, you want to have your windows open, you want to have and I just think about that as a teacher, but then also as a student, I want to see so many of the elements of the outside when I'm in as well. And I think there was something to do. I know I talked to Margaret about this. And you know, it was, I understand it was like the orientation of the building, but I also noticed when I was reviewing the pictures that the Needham School may have had longer windows and the top was sort of screened off. And then the bottom, you could definitely see the outside, which was gorgeous. I mean, it was it was well landscaped. And I think, you know, in that vein, and I know both Mike and Phoebe spoke to this, but the outside, there was definitely a difference of feel. And in terms of the the design and the layout, like I felt like even though one of them had a smaller playground, the layout of it made it feel big and and much easier to to watch students. I felt but it really it felt like a community area, a place that I would want to bring my own kids to something that kids would look forward to every day. But then as a teacher, and from a safety perspective, I felt like really good. Being able to see everything that was going on. But I also felt like when I think about the students in my building and the students in our district that have mobility issues, I felt like one of the playground areas had many more options. So it felt much more inclusive to me. So so that was something that to consider for me. Those are some of the considerations for me. So I'll just add a few things. The when Phoebe said, the school's size felt different. The school that was 110,000 square feet felt smaller than the 92,000 square foot school. And I thought both visually when you came in it, but even when you were in it. So this notion of long hallways versus community space. So I think it's something we've already got in our design, which is a plus. Did it was a feeling of space. We were all surprised. You could sort of asking which you think was the bigger schools. And we get you would guess wrong based on your feeling. The other is, we were just talking about daylight in the classroom, but I was struck by thinking about and I hadn't thought about this before where we put the art room and where we put the cafeteria in terms of rooms that are going to have outside. If you're on the north side of a north south building, you're more protected from the strong sunlight during the day. And I think one of the schools, the art room, one was in east west, you know, it's hard to compare them because one was east west. And when you have to have the blinds down. And so where, how you bring the light in and where you're going to go outside from a building, the cafeteria and forget the first cafeteria, but the second cafeteria. And then the library was on the first floor, but they had an indoor window to the hallway. So the hallway was lit by the fact that the cafeteria was lit. You know, so there was a real airiness feeling to it. So I was just thinking about which side of the building these rooms are on. We should be thinking about. And then on the outdoor space, what Tammy was talking about on the entry to the first school we went to, they had a whole bunch of gardens and things maintain. It wasn't plant gardens, but it was also tomato plants, clearly kids. But I thought, you know, do you want the gardens on the south side of the building or on the north side of the building in terms of and they were a little bit protected by sort of a heat sink. And there were bio there were rain gardens. So some of the things we've talked about having on our outside that made the whole surrounding of the school really interesting. And I think we have the same landscape and outdoor person that was on the school. We really liked the outside, but trying to think of what's on the south side, what's on the north side, what's on the east and west since we had this giant site at Fort River. We were not pushed by a road to say it could only be on this side of the building versus that side, which the one school was pushed by the size of the site to kind of scrunch everything together. So those were just things that I wouldn't have seen if I hadn't seen two schools. So I thought it was really useful to see two because one had more leeway of what's in front, what's in back. And the pickup. And as Tammy just said, the one had really thought that through. The other thing I should say, I mean, Rupert, you weren't with us and Ben, but the Lexington School is geothermal and it's got PV. So you could park your car under a canopy and it wasn't hot when we got in it. That was really nice because this was such a hard day. None of us wanted to be outside in the sun, but it was quiet inside and the air had a really nice feeling everywhere. You know, you weren't too cold and it wasn't shifting when you went from room to room. The engine room, I'll call it an engine room, the facilities room was mind boggling. It looked like something out of, you know, a sci-fi fictional thing with these with these giant things coming in and out. But they the maintenance and the facilities person who took us around initially he's in charge of all the schools and he said they can see everything on a central panel if something is or isn't working and the local people can alert them, but they they're more just running the system. So it was an integration of, you know, overview that I think I thought it was great to see because we saw a system that's like the HVAC system we're potentially talking about for ours. And the air just felt good. The other school, in contrast, it had its air conditioners on and it in some places it felt really cold and other places not, you know, so the ability to, you know, someone was saying turn it down or I've got to go get my sweater, you know, in the middle of the day. So thank you, thank you for arranging it because it was really, really helpful to see these spaces and I know one of the things you've been thinking about is to what extent it affects the layout of our spaces, you know, in outdoors. So it would be great to see what you come up with as would you want to do this rather than that. So thank you and thanks everyone that went and I'm hopeful that we can see a completely different design. Maybe at the beginning of August. So just to, you know, have have another opportunity to see a totally different school and just kind of to confuse you even more. But, but I read, you know, for us seeing seeing as much as possible and we intentionally pick those two schools. One of them was an hour as one was, but it wasn't even so much for that it was more how different they were. And this at least one other school that we were looking at, we might even go look at a couple of others because they have some features that we've been talking about, not our designs. But what's important is the user experience, right. And I know it was in the middle of the summer, so we couldn't quite have the opportunity to ask the teachers or their staff would be like, what don't you like? It was interesting at the first school. We went in to see the nurse and it wasn't the nurse's real building. So she opined on the space which she liked what she didn't like, but she doesn't use it year round. So that's kind of the disadvantage for doing it in the summer, but they were both fully used. So you build it, they will come. We are really happy to say that Bill Brown, our landscape architect, was actually on both on both projects. So you can see the vast difference. There was more opportunities with one than the other, but it was also what was important and to both communities, you'll see where the emphasis was with their money. And I think that will be an important discussion and consideration. We had amazing outdoor learning areas and everything else at the Houston School, the second school. And when we started looking at how are we going to reduce the cost, they did not want to take away from the educational experience inside. They did not want to take away from the maintenance and durability or the equipment and materials. So what was left was some of the outdoor amenities. So it's going to be a balance on what's most important to you all and how we can achieve everything. Probably with some compromise, but we'll get through it. But you can see the differences and and how the communities chose to use their resources. And I think if we go to the Beale School, maybe High Plain, I think, oh, just the Plain School, whatever. But that will give you another opportunity to see and those that those are different designers as well in totally different communities. Again, where do they choose to use their resources? But I think with that said, we can actually start talking about the site design. If we have a couple of minutes, we've started looking at how we can incorporate outdoor play, outdoor learning. Tammy, I think a lot of your observations and you know, we saw you in the library at the second school going this is great because I can see every I can see you all. But that's what it's about. Like, like, you don't want these little kids like taking off on you. And we know that you have some special needs students that really are going to need oversight. And so when we start looking at these spaces, when we start designing the spaces, when we start getting to the room data sheets, all these meetings that we're trying to set up, all of these discussion points need to come up. And we need to understand and hear from you. But with that, Tim, I think if it's OK, Kathy, if we can start just talking about we have a few site plans that we just like to talk about that there are some tweaks on what you've seen already. And so we can start to discuss how we would want things to move and be organized. Yeah, Tim, just Phoebe, just raise your hand. So I just want to make sure we get that before you, Phoebe. Yeah, I just had a quick question. So Vivian, this I think this is actually for you. When we were at the Lexington School, I think you said that 22 percent of the outside the building space was window. I don't know that I said that right. So it's it's a window to wall ratio that feeds into the energy model that then feeds into the whole efficiency of the school. So I think we're at about 22 percent, meaning the amount of windows in comparison to the amount of building envelope is 22 percent. And do we know what it was for the medium school? We don't. I actually asked Catherine from facility if there was a number that they talked about and she didn't have it at her fingertips. Yeah. OK. All right. That would be interesting because there was something about the amount or the placement or the size of the windows that had a very big difference. And I'm wondering if it's just there were more or if there was something about those windows that had a different feeling. So thank you. Yeah. We can try to get that information. And you're right. When I walked into the Needham School, I was really amazed at the amount of glass that was up high. It was like every single classroom had kind of a wall to wall expanse of glass up high. So that got me thinking about what is that percentage. So we know some folks at the architectural group. So maybe we can try to get that info. We'll let you know. Thank you. Thanks. And did me just when you're doing that, I can't remember whether both did this. But the Lexington School had glass wall to ceiling glass in the stairwell. And one of our thought is, could it have a big window rather than that much to have daylight? You know, so it was good because the stairs were well lit. So it was just a question on that's part of that ratio, too, as you look at it. Yeah, and I think the other part to bringing in natural light into the corridors or other areas is also important. I don't know if you've got the same sense, but it's what you see when you're going down the corridors. One school didn't even have windows in some of the stairwells. And so the natural light wasn't you weren't taking advantage of natural light into the corridors and such. So for us taking a holistic approach and how we can bring in natural light into the building without adding cost or window to wall ratio. And I the need in school did not. I know it's not net zero. They didn't have solar canopies. I didn't go on the roof. I don't know if they had solar on the roof. They do have an EV on the roof. And they don't have geothermal or ground source or air source. So it was also was built about the same time. So that was completed in 19 hours was completed in 20. Hastings was completed in 20. But the emphasis with Lexington is they're kind of Amherst on the east side of Massachusetts where they want to be net zero, et cetera. So a lot of discussion was how can we make this building as energy efficient as possible? And that was really important. So and that was also an electric building compared to the Needham building. And I don't I don't know what the we'll see what the window wall ratio is. And that might also be telling Tim, you're on and you're muted. Thank you. All right, so can you see that type plan? Yeah, so this is very close to the last site plan you saw with some minor tweaks. One of the changes is the drop off building to the West the drop off to the West of the building has been extended down in front when you last saw it was shorter. But the general concept is there is play in outdoor learning distributed around the building. There are athletic fields to the north and south and then drop off loops for buses and cars on different sides of the building to separate the traffic. This is imagined with buses to the south and cars to the West and extending to the north of the site. But the geometry of both is such that it could be reversed if it worked better that way. And then so this shows combination of hardscape and planting around the building with stations for structured play and outdoor learnings distributed about. What you see here as blue is a stormwater management feature which would be similar to what you saw at the city of Williams or with stones. It would not be outstanding water at any point. And thanks to the drought you could see there was no water while we saw and need. And so we begin to just look at different organizations and moving things around the site with the constraints as we understand them a little bit more. What this does is push the building to the south. It was originally less than 20 feet away from the original building. This is a little bit more than 100 which gives you a little bit separation for construction. What this does also is concentrate all of the outdoor play and learning on one side the north of the building and then the south of the building is mostly for drop off and a service entry. They wouldn't have been during drop off and pick up. And then the athletic field that was to the south of the building is moved to the east. This zones all of the uses on the site a little bit more concisely any student that leaves the building to go to outdoor play outdoor learning or to use the athletic fields is never crossing a drop off loop or parking in any way. So that we're moving towards a slightly higher safety considerations not that they weren't there before but it just makes everything a bit more easier and controllable. And then another version of this keeps all of the outdoor play and learning around the building distributed like the first option but aggravates all of the outdoor recreation to the northern part of the site so that you have some of your zone. These are the you know the big levers that we can push in the site design as we you know figure out really what we can build up against what we can build to how far we can get away from the existing building with the building pulled a little bit south and some extra space to deal with. We can think about how we might reorganize the spaces in the building. The plans that we have shown you to date have the cafeteria facing south and the gym to the north. But if we were to move in the direction of this option it would probably make sense to have the cafeteria facing the north. It would be direct to the playground the outdoor learning spaces if there were a parent drop off at the loop on the left of the building. Cafeteria makes a good collection point for dismissal and arrival in the morning for anyone that's not going straight in the door. And so this is the very start of the process of looking at these big pieces how they inform the location of the pieces in the building and or how the location of the elements in the building classrooms cafeteria and gym push and sort of pull site elements to be where they want to be. We're really just looking for any initial thoughts and feedbacks today. No decisions just with the tours fresh in your mind and how those relationships work. We just wanted to put this in front of you to see if there's action and there may be components of one option that you feel strongly about that we could then rejigger and have a hybrid. So it's really great to hear some of your thoughts and Tim I might have missed it but some of the differences for the drop off that's on the south is that by this option provides the opportunity to move the car drop off to the loop. So it's longer it provides a little bit more queuing space than the other options which we were looking at as for a drop off to the south. So just a little clarification. Thanks, Sean. How does hand up first? OK, if I ask just a couple of questions. So I like the I like the options that don't have the students crossing the bus loop there. So I think the B and C look nice. They all look nice. But I may have missed this. The blue on the diagram is that water? So that that is the stormwater management features so that it's we can show some example image. There will never be except in the middle of a very serious rain event any standing water. But it is how the water is distributed through the site absorb into the ground and clean before it is discharged. And then there can also be planting and various other things in there that can be integrated into the curriculum. But it is not standing water. OK, are those the way it looks for some reason the way I was looking at are those bridges over the water? They are walking past and maybe. OK, so you would so the way to get to the kind of around the stormwater system, you would walk over one of those walking paths. You wouldn't just walk through the is it like a kind of almost like a like a trench kind of thing that might have rocks or plants in it? It's almost like a streambed. If you can imagine a streambed that is mostly dry, but during after storm events, there might be water still meandering through. But most of the time you'll see, you know, kind of plant material and rocks and boulders. OK, so here are examples of landscape features similar. They could be more or less. Able to walk across in terms of whether or not you would have to take the bridge, whether it's deeper with more planting. But these is just the very start of incorporating the elements of the site that allow it to work and deal with the water and have some natural habitat and provide learning opportunities for the students. So lots of hands are up. So I think in the order I'll take Paul. I think Jonathan was first. OK, Jonathan. Yeah, I don't have an order on my screen. Jonathan. Sorry, I took a minute to unmute. I think actually Mike was first, but dropping my comments in quickly and then allowing others to talk. I between the kind of B and C, I, you know, I definitely think it what we we should do whatever we can to kind of minimize crossing of traffic past with students. But so between B and C, I like to distribute the option that more distributed kind of play areas and outdoor learning areas. I just think there's something, you know, a little bit easier for kids to get to a little bit more equity for each, you know, this group of classrooms. I think the other thing I like about it is the one where they're all to the north, given that much of the year is cold and that time of year also has really long shadows that that, you know, some of those players if they were all in the north would would tend to be, I think more in shade in that kind of November, December, January, February time frame. And so from that perspective, I will also tend to favor the one that's up right now, B1. And then the last comment I'll make is I know it's something you haven't gotten to yet, but just to kind of nudge you toward looking at the exit off our site and whether there's some flexibility and I don't know, maybe moving that exit a little bit further to the south. Does that help with stacking of traffic on the streets? Just something I don't want us to kind of lose sight of as we're looking at site and site organization. Thanks. Mike and then Paul, you know, you're stacked up on my screen in reverse order. Paul can go. I've already spoken quite a bit. So I'll go after Paul. Okay. So I agree that I like B1. I think, you know, and it'd be curious about Rupert's opinion, like keeping all the sort of area that this field area that has to be maintained might be more efficient if it's all connected. I understand what Jonathan's saying about us, you know, separating them out. I do like the idea of the cafeterias on the south side of the building that you have your queuing there for the buses. I think there's, there might be some access that makes it easier there's, but my preference would be to start looking at that B1 direction. So Mike and then Tammy, I see that your hand is up also. So I agree with a lot of the comments separating, you know, just a traffic flow of kids and buses and cars is really important to us. Can you flip forward to some of the B and C just cause I think the distinction that, yeah, exactly. So having the two field areas, I'm just thinking of the number of students in the school and the potential advantages of having areas where younger kids and older kids might play in different areas. So that's sort of on my mind, I also start thinking about site costs when I think about separating those areas out and thinking about some of the elements of the playground areas that both Tammy and I really liked and one of the schools we saw and if there's a cost difference, that's where the rubber will meet the road is if we want these things and it ends up being less expensive to have one larger area versus these two, I think that's where things will get interesting but in general, you know, the separation of traffic and kids is the highest order of magnitude for me. And I think when we get to the other, again, I like the idea of having some separation, you know, given that the well, five-year-olds and 11-year-olds in the same building and they may have different desires and needs of use of some of the spaces. Tammy. What I notice about B versus B1 is the longer queuing area for cars, for the student pickup. What I like about that is it would increase efficiency much like what I have right now at Fort River. And so it would be interesting to hear how long with the shorter queuing system, if it would take longer or what that would look like, is particularly when I think about days with really inclement weather, you know, it would be nice to be able to have kids getting into cars really quickly and really efficiently. When it comes from the separated playing fields, I also appreciate that just because, you know, as Mike mentioned, it allows for more flexibility, also allows for more opportunities for outdoor learning. So you, students may not necessarily have to be on the same field where other kids may be playing. And then if I was a community member, it, you know, I might really appreciate having the fields still very close together. So if I had multiple kids, I, you know, one's here, one's there, but then you still sort of have that separation of space. And I guess I could make the argument to having the fields all in the same area. Just real quick, Tim, I don't know if you want to describe how the circulation is the original intent. If you go back to maybe the one with the smaller queue. Yeah, do you want to walk through? Because I think the low, the drop off to the south was intended for buses originally so that you had a very long queue for a parent drop off. Yeah. As imagine this queue would come cars, parents picking up or dropping off would have the queue from the road all the way to the drop off loop to the northern extent of this loop. And then there's a small separation if necessary to break it up. There could be a separate path for vans separate yet again from cars and buses. But yes, buses would be to the south with the larger turn radius. They could either turn and exit to the southern entrance which we are looking at or go to the north and then cars would do the loop of the property and drop off here. And then with these two access points from the western move and the southern move we start to think about what the best way to get into the building is where the entrance is. What the collection point if it's the cafeteria it's on the north or south side. Sean is your hand up again. Yeah. One of the, I was just talking about the field location. One of the reasons maybe I like be a little more than be one is and I'm not trying to get a set of how big that baseball field is but in the option where all the fields are there. If you have somebody playing baseball or softball, it might limit all the other field use. I know if we're off sometimes it's like that where when we play softball, the fields kind of run into each other. So this, this option I like better because it allows you to you got baseball going up north and then a completely separate sport to the, to the east there and I hope they wouldn't, you know, there's no chance that they would run into each other. And just to let you know, I believe the dimensions of the field to the east is for your ultimate frisbee. That's the legit size, right? That is, yes, that is the size for that for lack of a specific program about what is actually going to happen, but it is large enough that there could be two smaller U8, U10, U12 soccer fields on it. But, you know, all of these aspect ratios and sizes can be adjusted. Rupert. Yes, thank you. I'm, I'd like to make sure that you're envisioning something like a dozen full size school buses plus up to half a dozen special ed fans in the queuing area for the public transport. And I'm concerned about the short, the shorter loops to the south not being able to have that capacity, but I don't really have a sense of scale. Thank you. So I'll just ask it as a question in one of the schools for the delivery of supplies to the cafeteria or wherever, you know, people are bringing in things would, whether it's be or be one, would that be in that loop? Is that where a delivery truck would come is so not during the same time as buses are queued in there is because that that I'll call it brown area all around the school. That's not a roadway that so the only road you have is either the very front or on the side. Correct. Correct. So these are both imagined with service being off the loop to the south. I will admit is not rendered perfectly in the fact that there would be hard escape going to the building at some point. And with this option on the screen now option B is likely that the cafeteria would face north. And so there would be a necessity to cross a corridor with deliveries. Absolutely. If there were a different model where the cafeteria face south, there could be an adjacency that would get rid of that possibility or necessity to cross the corridor with services. But, you know, the proximity of a loading service area, as well as a sign next to a playground is something we would have to consider. And that's one of the things that will help us choose between these options. I may have missed this, but where was the clay structure area on option B? Or on any of the options? So the spaces distributed around are all sides such that they could interchangeably be structured play with the poor surface that you saw in the schools that we visited for various types of outdoor learning spaces. And then the spaces in between could be hardscape that was painted with game lines, four square, as you saw at both schools. So these elements are designed to be, for lack of a better word, placeholders for the outdoor classrooms and play areas. And Tim, just for discussion purposes, the way we've drawn the meandering, you know, stormwater management, little rain gardens or whatever, that can, can we redesign that? Can we relocate that? Does it have to be in that area? Or are we saying that's a beautiful design feature that might enhance the site and could also be used for learning? It is flexible. All of the play and outdoor learning could be on one side. The stormwater management features could create a boundary between play and outdoor learning and the athletic fields. It's entirely possible that these features also could be incorporated into spaces that if you want to keep kids away from them for whatever reason, they could also be incorporated into traffic violence or the drop off loop or off to the side of the building where they're still doing their purpose close enough to the building and then the site elements to collect the water and do what it has to do. But it doesn't have to be central to the kids' experience of the site. But we see it as an opportunity. So that's how it is currently shown. So if there's, I think someone said, are those bridges that the kids going to have to cross bridges to get to the play areas or whatever. So we'll have better graphics, better images to show the width, the size, the, is there a cost every time you have to do a bridge, Rupert, are you going to have to plow that bridge every time just so the kids can access, right? So I think what we're trying to elicit from everyone is, and we'll continue to develop on, we'll come up with what, what do you like for learning areas? Where do you want those in proximity to the academic spaces? Maybe, you know, how did the kids exit the building and kind of again, that separation of play and learning so that you can have recess going on while you have learning going on in another area. But, and then, and then how does the whole thing flow? And how is it all managed or maintained? So these are just, I think, more to solicit thoughts about do you want everything together and that it all flows in one direction? Does it make sense to disperse it? And then how, how does the drop off pickup function on the site as well as deliveries back, back of the house discussion? And where's the trash? Where's, where's all of those activities going to occur? But I think these are just, they are intentionally illustrative just, just to solicit ideas. Okay, I think we have time, Phoebe, we have time for one more comment and we have invoice and we need to do public comments. So I, I'm just conscious. And I'll get, we'll make sure we post all of these. Okay. So people will have the visual that they can go and get it out of the packet. Phoebe? I was just going to say, I think what, what Needham did, what we saw on Wednesday that Needham did was similar to what you guys are talking about or what you have planned here. And if someone who is clearly smarter than I, who took some pictures of what Needham did with their storm water around the front of their building, that was really beautiful. I think it's something that we can use during those times where there is water in it. You know, I think that I like that idea. So maybe if somebody who has pictures could share them with the committee so that we can, you know, it might not be exactly like that, but something similar to it where they had the bridge over and those kinds of things. And I think especially because we're talking about not just the green space, but adding in, you know, the green space, the green space, the green space, the green space, the green space is black top and that kind of stuff in between it. My feeling is that to have it separated out like the, with the longer loop on the south, I think, and have those play spaces separated out or the green space separated out or whatever is probably where I would fall on the side of which one of those three. And the longer loop is a possibility with a more distributed space. So we will work on that. Now that we have a slightly better understanding of or taking steps towards eventually reaching that understanding of what we want to achieve, we will go back and rework these options. Thank you. So we have one invoice, correct? We do. I think we can just go ahead and fill it up. It's, it's, it's. It's answer advisories invoice for the month of June. And here we go. So as ever, I think everybody knows, so we do our billing on an hourly basis. This is. Ramona updating the website. Bob Stevens. So I'm going to go ahead and fill out the, the date of the payment meeting and then myself. And then I'm just going to scroll through. The detail quickly. Just lists. You know what. Not expecting anybody to read this in detail, by the way. But it just, it's our. Our method of. Hourly recording of time. So the total is 16,000 and $65. So. I move to approve. Second. Is there any discussion. And Sean oversees all of these. So he knows what the master budget is. So. Then seeing no discussion. I'll do a vote. And I'm going to do it this time just by the faces I see on the screen. Tammy. Yes. Paul. Yes. Ben. Mike. Yes. Rupert. Yes. John. Yes. Phoebe. Yes. Simone. Yes. Elisha. Yes. And Kathy is a yes, it's unanimous with, I, I didn't see, did I not call Jonathan? Maybe Jonathan. He's somehow in the attendees at the moment. Jonathan dropped out. I see him there. I have to bring him. I just promote it. Okay. Jonathan. When you come back. Jonathan. There we go. Sorry about that. My phone eventually died and when I came. A panelist. I approve. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Kathy. One quick thing. I do have a picture I can pull up quickly that I took at the Sunita Williams. In reference to what Phoebe was saying. So Phoebe, this is the kind of what you were thinking of wanting to share pictures of, right? This is some of the outdoor teaching space. And this is this kind of. Dry rock bed that is used to manage water. Is that the kind of picture you were talking about? Yeah. I can send that around. Yeah. And I took some too. So we can create it. And it's, there's a rain garden aspect to this as you do it. And this is the, it's partly, there's a front of the building in the back of the building that they did. There's this East and West that they did differently. So in the play structure, there weren't a lot of bridges. There was one bridge leading you to an amazing path. So it's a bridge that you can do along with AmeriCorps or some volunteer group. It was. Sorry, Kathy. We too took quite a few images. And again, having Bill Brown as a landscape architect, you know, he can also weigh in and provide, you know, additional images. We were just. A little under the gun and pulling this together for today. No, that's fine. So are there any other Margaret was your hand up for the picture? Yes. Yeah, exactly. If there are no other comments. Then I think I'll open it for public comments and. Chris Riddle has his hand up. For whoever is managing it. Hi, Chris. You have joined us. If you unmute Chris. Back to the lead chips question. All right. I'm going to second here. Is there a. Is there a requirement for a educational dashboard in both certification programs? That's a question. Then either one is there any, is there a prohibition to selling racks? We're allowed to sell wrecks under the zero energy bylaw. I'm curious to know whether either lead or chips allows you to do that. They're the lead, the zero energy bylaw requires recommissioning after 12 months of you operations. Excuse me. And it requires a peer review at. At substantial completion. Is there the, how does that go? How do those two requirements jive with either chips or lead? Since we're deep designed, designed to build. We will get bids from all kinds of general contractors. Can we, on what basis can we reject to build a bid as. Non-compliant. That's a question I came across many times in my professional career. Almost done. The portable canopies over the parking lot do not show on the site and PV canopies on the parking lot. I noticed that the one school that we saw that had PV conspicuously in it did not have it over the can over the parking lot either. So I'm going to go back to the three story building. We're obviously going to have to do that. When will we see where those canopies go? And what is their extent? And. Last question is the. I don't see on the site plan, the well fields for the ground source. The start. Do we have, have we thought through where that goes? Those are my questions. I have a lot of net zero questions, but I'm going to go back to that. So I'm going to go back to the meeting of the net zero site community. Thank you. Bruce. Bruce had his hand up. Can you hear me? Yes. Two comments. One related to the site visit yesterday, which I was actually fortunate enough to be invited to attend. I think Jonathan was unavailable. And. I was invited to join and I appreciated very much the opportunity and also meeting. Five members of the design team and Margaret to. I had never seen before. And it was wonderful to. Feel that we are in such good hands, actually. So one comment related to the site simply on the systems. I took a go on for quite a while about this, but the most salient thing for me, which hasn't really been said, I think is the, the need in school was a largely fossil fuel driven heating cooling system. And it was quite complicated to manage. And it was only because of the seemingly extraordinary capability of the superintendent there that it was even possible. And as has been reported, it wasn't even perfectly attuned. Mexican soil was quite different. And it's, as has been said, it's, it's, it was wonderful to be able to see an experience. An example of what the design team is proposing for us. And it was in. It was really very reassuring. We were able to appreciate the value, I think of what the design team is proposing for us. The heating and cooling energy is distributed through the building. Using hot water and cold water in circulation. In pipes circulated by pumps. And this is all related to a, a ground sourced solution, which we seem to be heading towards, I think, based on what we are seemingly hearing about what the nature of ever sources support would be. So this was, I think quite relevant. It's no longer a pipe dream. Circulating that water to the bulk of the spaces. And then basically converting it to heat and cooling in the spaces using these chilled beams. Tim was able to point out to me, well, chilled beam is now I've seen chilled beams diagrammatically and in various buildings in Europe and so forth to 20 years ago. This is not your grandfather's chilled beam. I found out this is a really interesting, aesthetically agreeable, completely quiet, really wonderful system for distributing heat and cooling into spaces. It seems to be, according to the superintendent's in the school, a very effective, very functional, completely quiet. And the flushed mountain, you know, ceilings and integrated with the tiles is very attractive. But for me this, there seem to be a couple of other benefits. And this is where for me it got quite interesting. And to be able to discuss this with Richard and, and Tim particularly, the incidental benefit seems to be that what the first one seems to be that distributing the heating and cooling using pipes and water and so forth takes so much less space in the ceiling planings than ducks would so much less space. It gives us the flexibility to lift those ceilings. And maybe even as was discussed, incline those ceilings toward the exterior wall, which would give greater and perhaps noticeably greater opportunity for admitting daylighting because you, the exterior wall, where the ceiling meets the exterior wall, can give you an extra foot or two of, of exterior wall space for higher windows, more glazing and really being able to achieve the higher level of daylighting that we're trying to achieve. So it's a, it's a functional relationship between this kind of system that we were looking at and the opportunity to improve daylighting. There's a direct line between the two based on the greater, the less space consumed in the planum by things like ducks and so forth. That was very kind of exciting and interesting to me. The second is that incidental benefit is that when you do distribute all this heating and cooling hydronically, which is to say using water, that means that the air circulation for ventilation is entirely its own master. All of the ducks now that are there are dedicated to ventilation. It's not shared with heating and cooling, which means that you can basically have a ventilation system that is completely in control. Bruce, can I stop you just for a second? And we also have to keep comments. I think Paul is going to say that he's going to need to hard stop Paul. Yeah, I have to log off. I think, but I think we did agree three minute comments for what we. Yeah. So I just want to try to keep the comments to three and we'll take written comments, definitely. And the other is the daylighting. I wanted to say that I've been talking to Margot Jones and Margot is prepared to give a seminar for this committee and others. And sometime in mid August would be a time. So I will, through Kathy and Jonathan, advise on that. But I think we can, this team can do the kind of job on daylighting that we're after. Okay. Thank you, Bruce on Maria, you're here and we're at risk of losing a quorum. So please make the comments. As short as possible. Thank you, Maria. Thank you. I would like to encourage Mike and Ben to bring those policies and operational mandates that chip might have to the school committee, regardless of whether you choose lead or chips. And to incorporate as many as possible to make us as efficient school district as we can. So I think that that has value whether we have to, we have to do it or not. I really need to comment on what I think is a problem of having equitable access of members of the public to the trip that happened, which I'm so glad that you guys did it. I'm so glad that there were, there was parents on that, that the educators were on that. And you guys seem to learn a lot from visiting the schools. Um, and while I don't have a quarrel with having a member of the general public, not on the committee attending. Um, it is problematic that that offer was not made, uh, publicly and, um, uh, to other people who might have been interested and willing and able to attend and offer some other perspectives. So, uh, I would like to please ask that, uh, that sort of selective access to, uh, uh, discussions with the design team and to opportunities, uh, uh, cease. I think that that needs to be, uh, you have to invite everybody and see you can come or nobody. Uh, the other request is I did not see in the packet, um, uh, the posting for that, the ever source program that, that you guys mentioned, um, about, uh, for geothermal that can have a substantial impact, uh, on the upfront capital costs. And I'm wondering if that is available. Uh, can that be posted in the packet materials as soon as possible so that that can be shared with the public. Thank you. Thank you, Maria. Um, I think that is it for people with their hands up. So unless there are other comments from the committee, um, we did take all of these down on, and just on the, the posting, um, I have an email that I will convert to on the, uh, whatever sources offering. And it will also be in a slide next week. Well, but I will post that I just didn't get around to it this week. So that's my delay. Um, we did hear back from them. Um, we did hear back from them and Dinesco has translated the incentive to what it would mean if we, if we can achieve it. All right. And we can obtain it. So I think, I think with that we are adjourned. If I don't hear anything else. So we are adjourned at. 1035 on Friday morning. Thank you, everyone. Bye.