Today is May 14th. We are in the superintendent's conference room at the Amherst Regional Middle School. And this is being recorded by Amherst Media. I'm going to move into our agenda and call us to order. And the first item of business is approved minutes from previous meeting. And I forgot to print them out, so I'm not going to remember exactly what the date was, but I think it was April 3rd. Thank you. I think there were two, right? You send one, I send one. You make one. And you send two. Two versions of that one? No, you send one. Oh, it was probably the previous meeting as well, which would have been March. April 13th? Maybe there was. No, that was already approved. Yeah. 313 and 43 were the last two meetings. OK. Well, we will presume that that is correct. The email that you sent yesterday, only it's 43, actually. Yeah, the other set of meeting minutes, if I'm remembering what Irena's remembering, would have been three or four weeks ago, probably not long after the last meeting. But we could start with the most recent ones. Does anyone have any corrections to that set of minutes? Motion to approve minutes, 43. Second. All in favor? A little nervous to ask for a motion on a set that I can't recall the dates of. But I think there was a set that Allison had sent around. I would have to go back to previous minutes to confirm that we had or had not approved those. And the devices can, in turn, look like it's outstanding. Well, we might have to resend those around. The most recent minutes, it should be in the first paragraph. Allison did the four 10 minutes. Four 10 minutes. But have we actually seen those? No. She sent them, I think she sent them around. I'm going to assume that I dropped the ball that I didn't send those around, and I'll have to send them around, and we'll have to move them to a future meeting. Moving on, the next item is public comment. Who is taking minutes today? Yes. I can do it. OK. Now, we'll be on to public comment, which won't have any numbers to public today. So we'll move on to reviewing the latest draft that TSKP has sent to us for the study. I know you've gotten some comments back. Most of them, at least in my review of them, were kind of periods commas, that sort of level of stuff. Are there ones you would like to highlight to us that were kind of content ones that you really need comment on? No. I think I see most of them as copy editing, like you said. So unless you have some that are open questions that you're thinking of that she'd like to discuss, I think we can address all of the comments we received in the final final interview. I will open it up to my group to see if they have other comments for a minute. I have some questions, and I didn't send all my comments. I have to find, I think the major question I have, I have some editing, maybe some summer editing. One is about the cost between the UI 50 and the UI 30. And I think we have to address, I think, I don't know what you said. I sent some comments, it's all about. Because my question is, does MSPA reverse us for the solar panels? The calculations are assuming that they do. Yeah, I think they would, except when you think about the fact that they have a cost per square foot cap. So considering your project costs more than that cap, is it the solar panels that are driving you over, or just the fact that it depends how you look at that? No, I'm just trying to think about it, because whether it has an impact on the overall cost, whether they do reverse as a practice, the cost of the solar panels, or they don't. Because they would reverse us for an UI 30 better envelope and better windows, no problem. If there was a discussion on whether they do or they don't reverse the solar panels, then the UI 30 becomes cheaper than the UI 50. Because the cost of the constructions of improving the envelope and the windows directly for doing the construction, and it's not at all exclusive balance. Well, in our MSPA shared calculations, we assume that they did reimburse the cost of the panels. So you're seeing that reduction in cost of town in our calculations. Yes, but that's my question. You assume that they reimbursed the solar panels. Is it standard that they reimbursed solar panels over? That's our understanding. When the project would go forward with the MSPA, I guess you would find out officially at the end of schematic design, but we see no reason that they wouldn't. Because it has a big impact on cost, because right now the UI 30 is more expensive by $1.2 million, but actually on the UI 50, the difference between the two is all the solar panels. There are four million dollars difference, or three and a half million dollars difference between the cost of the solar panels. But those three and a half million dollars would be reimbursed. If I could just interject something somewhat related. Am I incorrect in believing that we would get reimbursements even for the UI 50 because it's better than code, or there is an additional step up for... So now you're talking about the incentive point. And so being 20% better than code achieves 2% of additional reimbursement. And yes, we could achieve that with the UI 50. And then I think Eric also had a point. So I would like to get, if we could get more clarity just about the solar panels, I believe that was a question in the previous building project of like, it was gonna be solar ready, but not have solar panels. And I think there might have been a reason for that in terms of reimbursement. Also, I don't know, maybe Eric you know from the middle school route application that we just did, maybe if there is information about do they reimburse or not, it would be good to know, or at least have a statement that says, if they do reimburse this, if they don't reimburse that. And then to the other point of UI 30 versus 50, I think that some of the comments that I sent directly addressed that and said that if it really is the case, because I was looking through and it looks like the construction cost per square foot and the total project costs are actually lower for option A UI 30 versus 50. And I think that's an important point to make. I think we might wanna, if I did read that correctly, I'd wanna highlight that a little bit in the introduction and in the cost analysis because. I don't follow you with that last statement that I remember it being more expensive, maybe we should look at where you're seeing that, but going back to the initial discussion and trying to explain my first answer a little bit further, the MSBA is capping the amount of reimbursement money at a certain cost per square foot, which both the UI 50 and UI 30 exceed. And because of the cost of the solar panels, the UI 30 exceeds it even more. And so you can think of the solar panels as generally being reimbursable, however, because the project is so far over this cost per square foot cap, they're not really reimbursed. And so that may have been a strategy in the wild or in a previous project that the town pursued in that you don't wanna make the cost of the project even more, even higher because you know that those additional costs over the MSBA's threshold are no longer reimbursable. I could understand that. Could I explain? Kind of not. Not fully. I mean, I get what you're saying that no matter what, we're gonna be over the ridiculously low MSBA cost per square foot cap. But if we go to section eight, and I'm on page 46, which has got option A, EUI 50, and then 47 is EUI 30 for option A. So the total construction cost for the, this is for the 465 option is 50.5 million for EUI 50, right? And it's 46.9 for EUI 30 and the cost per square foot likewise is 593 and then 552. So that's where I was looking when I was saying, oh, you know, that's kind of, that's an interesting point. You know, going to a more efficient building, even though you're investing more in the envelope and you're doing those things because you have so much less PV and other issues, there's something that's making that actually cost less. And if that's really the case, I think we should talk about that quite aside. I mean, there's that issue and then there's a reimbursing issue. So there's the two separate issues. So that's what I was curious about. And I wanna make sure I'm interpreting that correctly before we go saying that. I think part of the difference is going the GC route. That's what, that's the third factor. So yes, I think that does make sense, but it's not simply being more efficient because if you stay sort of apples to apples, the CM route for both EUI 30 and EUI 50, the EUI 50 is going to be a little bit cheaper. But because we're comparing basically a CM method because it compares with all the rest of our options, EUI 50 to a GC method that the GC is coming in a little bit less expensive. I believe that's the third factor that's in play between the two which are comparing. So back on 46, oh, wait a minute, GC method for EUI 30, CM method for, oh. Do you follow me? Now I've got it, yeah, so page, just for anybody that's trying to follow along. So page 46 where we have the EUI 50, that's CM at risk and 47 is GC, which, and that specific one is in there because we are, that was part of the case studies. Correct, yes, and then you had us add that estimate to reflect the case study, to use some backup to it. Yeah, then since I was confused, it might be that other people would look at this and make the same mistake. So maybe either have a head-to-head where the only thing that's different is the EUI and or, I made another comment later on about, I use it in, trying to think which section it's in, where we have the two tables, the massive tables with all the 100 plus options, to maybe make one of those shapes. Since the only difference between those current tables are the 1.25 factor, right? Between construction costs and project. Right, construction versus total project. Maybe it makes more sense to have one of those, possibly the construction cost one, be more of a construction cost per square foot, and then instead of having all of that grid of options with all of the different HVAC systems, maybe do GCCM, EUI-30, EUI-50 and have, so that you can look at that table and have some kind of summary where you can get a sense of, this is the effect of energy efficiency, this is the effect of procurement method, something more simple. You know what I mean? It could be there. I'm going to also direct you to this analysis, which I think you probably recall, that compares EUI-30 and EUI-50, and it starts to show the additional cost, which isn't great, but there is some additional cost when you try to compare apples to apples, going with the more efficient building, versus the building to code, which just supplements it with solar panels. So it's a clearer place to make the distinction, so maybe it needs, I think it's way there. Yeah, there's more reinforcement. Maybe we could reinforce it. We could note that the case study to follow sort of changes the recipe a little bit further, something like that. Just for my note, what section is that in? Again, is that section? It's also in section six. Six point nine, or? That's section three. That's six point nine. Six point nine, that's a couple pages. Six point four, past and at zero. Okay. You had also asked about the power purchase agreement. Yeah. And that fits in this discussion well. Right. As Rudy clarified at the last meeting, the very most recent version of the net zero, or the zero energy bylaw, has removed power purchase agreement as an option to the town. As you're pursuing net zero, you need to now own the solar panels that you use. You can't lease them, which is a recent change, or maybe it wasn't recent, but you had to get the very last version of the zero energy bylaw to see that. And it's pretty subtle in the statement, but we're proceeding under that understanding. And so I think, Maria, your comment was, well, let's remove all of the reference to power purchase agreement. And we have removed a lot of it in this draft. You may have missed it. It's been taken out. We did still speak about it in the narrative in some places. Really from the point of view that we've thought about it. And it could be that that zero energy bylaw adjusts in the future, I'm not sure. But it would at least include in the report the ramifications if it comes back, if it becomes an option.  That was my question for the group as well. I don't want it to be confusing, but it is information. We did do the work. We need to, it has to be a little clearer about where we are right now and what would require a change. I would tend to leave it in because it is something that's a common approach outside of Amherst's bylaw. And it shows that we thought about it. And I would defer to others if you think just more clarity is needed on the fact that it's not an option currently in Amherst. Eric. I would leave it in. And if you look at the language on page 123, section six, the section that has the link, the discussion of zero, you say in the middle of the page, this would not comply, though this would not comply with the current bylaw the cost of the project is zero. And I know that's, I mean if you're going to leave it in, that at least makes it clear that it's not currently complied with the bylaw. I think it should be on the first time that you measure, that you mentioned, I don't remember right now, but we should find in the document, where is the first time that you compare the cost by the solar panels or not on this thing. That's the first time that we should measure this and maybe we're enforcing repeatedly here. But I think not to have to go to section six somewhere in there to find the issue. I've tried to pare down the times when we talk about leasing to just this part of section six. And I think the cost is somewhere else, I've seen it. And that means we're still living in there. Yeah. Yeah, I tried to avoid out those. I saw it in several places. I don't remember where was the first place. Just to be in the case study. So that case study liner talks about leased, that probably should have gone. Yeah. And so maybe we ask you to just go back and perform more time and yeah. Clean up all the, or and also add on the first time that I mentioned the difference in cost between this thing and adding, that's where it should be on the first. Yeah, if this, if you're leaving it to page 123, then it would be there. I think that's the right place we won't. But I'm saying that it would solve the issue you're talking about, right? If that's the only place it shows up, then that's the place to find that. Yeah. Or I mean the other thing is you can always asterisk and put note where it shows up in tables just like remember, you know, this is not a firm option. You'd have to asterisk it at each one. And I think it's probably clear to remove it. I think since it's not actually a live option. Yeah. It's better just to get rid of it. Yeah.  So we're gonna de-seize it from tables. So that's everyone? I already started to do that, but I missed the case study. So it used to be on the same, used to have a line item at the bottom that says it could be zero. Right, exactly. That one way. And it's still hanging around on the case study comparison. I'll remove it there. Can we add them, keep it in the appendix? So we don't want to lose this information. We're gonna keep it on page 123 is what I'm hearing. Yeah, it's already on page 23 in the narrative. And in the narrative it says, but it's not compliant. Okay, Eric, I'm not sure if you had something earlier on that you wanted to. No, I just probably just looked. You looked at it. Express it. Yeah, express it. Exactly. Other, other arena or Maria or others, other comments you want to talk over as a group? Well, do we need to talk over all the stuff that you sent in? No, I don't think so. Unless it's kind of, my recommendation at this point, because I think this is an iterative process. If there's something that's kind of content related that you want to get comment from the rest of us, those are the ones I'd like to highlight today. If it's just kind of, I'm gonna call housekeeping, kind of cleaning the report up, I think Jesse's already said that he's gonna work his way through them. Eric? I'm just concurring with that point. So Jesse already said you've gotten these comments. I didn't send them up. Yes, I encourage you to send them. Okay. I'm just saying if we sort our conversation, we start with the idea that you already have a bunch of them and you're comfortable with them and you run through them, right? Yes. Okay. I guess if we do have time, it would be nice like we did the last time we sent a bunch of comments and sort of individually and we all as a group didn't get to hear what they were. Sure. I mean, I don't necessarily want to discuss all of them, but to get a sense of just how many and what are the general topics and like I don't know if you're organized in such a way to say to fly through them. Particularly the non-comma here you're wet to do. Right. Yeah, I don't even want to hear about the comments. Being the con is to say I don't want to hear any of those. Yeah, no. But there are some con. Like I know I sent some comments. No, no, I'm sure. I'm sure there are some con. I'd be very curious to hear what the rest of the committee were finding and just, it just. Blow through. The depth of those. I have a main comment for the introduction about the phrasing. Maybe, this is the place. On page one, two. What section are we in? Section one, page three. Maybe it's just a phrase, but sets up the mood of the thing. They say, it says on the first paragraph, they say the study includes scenarios to add their dedication, break it and gather to Forbiver to address the lack of space. I think, do we want to first it like, now I'm reading different. But all the studies, all the case studies, everything we are based on the 465. I would say, I would maybe change it to the study includes early education, pre-K and with the option to remove it. So our main focus has been on the 465 includes pre-K and that has been all our case studies and then you include the data for 420, 315, 365. And the main focus has been, we are assuming there's a pre-K and all the costs are based on that one and then we also show that it can be removed and how it does. But all the major drawings, everything has been based on the 465. Yeah, thank you. You don't think the sentence after that addresses that? The study includes scenarios to address multiple student enrollment figures? You don't think that's adequate? The study includes scenarios to add early education program, pre-K and before River to address a lack of space in the current district program. I mean, that's sort of a convoluted garbally sentence, but I think it's trying to say that we are including you know, that we are evaluating pre-K. For me, this is fine as an introduction. Okay. You know, we need to get in deeper depth to other places. I'll forgive you for that. No, it's okay. It's not Time Magazine, right? No, when you're looking at something that's this thick, it's not all going to be Emily Dickinson. It's just a way of saying it. No, that's why I thought the introduction is what most people are going to read. So I'm going to come to make sure it's that. Anthony. I had a formatting question that I did include in my comments, but I am curious. The way it's set up right now, it has page numbers on the right. Does that mean that in the final version, the left side page numbers are going to be towards the binding? We can do that. We can make it two-sided printing. My binder right now works well with just one-sided, but... Oh, so it's like, oh, you're going to do one-sided. I'm happy to do two-sided. I think we can make that change, and if that's the way you'd like to see it. I just assume. It will reduce the thickness of this quite a bit. Yeah, while we won't print off 100,000 of these things in the interest of being green, I would encourage us if it is not a horrible nightmare to format it for two-sided printing. Yeah. That makes sense. Easy to do. Did you guys talk about how many copies and who's making it? I was saying that, no, I did not. We have not really talked about that, and we probably should talk about that. Do you want to get through this? Yeah, let's get through this first. That's an important item. I put the next final steps. I did have a comment from both Maria and Heather about Section 7 and whether we needed to include the community outreach, which Heather then forwarded to me. And I can. It wasn't clear to me from our last discussion that that was in. We talked about it in, and then we were taking it out. Maybe I missed the term. Do you mean the memo? The document? The report that summarizes all the different. We had the website. Basically our strategy. The report. No, I mean that document, the thing that we've had. Yes. Yeah, that's what we're talking about. We wanted the outline. We wanted the thing in. OK. I lost track of that. I thought we were like, we don't want all the minutes for all the meetings. But we want that one. We want a list of all of our meetings. We want that thing. The thing, right? That thing. I called it a memo. You called it a report. It's the thing. All right, we will include that in the final. That's fine. I have some comments on section 6.9. I think some of the comments I can send them, I think they need some cleaning because they make reference to things that are not appropriate for this project. Sorry, which section? 6.9. But my first comment is on page 5. It says there's one first that's a little bit confusing, so I think it needs to be modified. OK, what's the? 6.9. Yeah, the page 5. Page 141. Page 141. Yeah, 141. Yeah. So it says, we understand the town of Armors is in the process at the bottom of updating the flood maps. The options exploring these studies are based on the new updated flood map. If the town does not update the flood maps, options presented here would need to be revised and mined no longer be feasible. I thought that this is only for option A. Well, you have to look carefully at each option now. If that 100-year flood line goes back or remains as it is, let's say, it's option A. I think it would affect anything building on the south side of that site. But I think it's mainly parking lots, most of the times, it's parking lots. Still be an impact, though. Yeah, but the question is, can we ask for an overlay? Or so, mainly, can we ask for an overlay of the options with respect to the old map to have in the appendix? I mean, on a certain level, I feel like there's going to be certain loose ends we're not going to be able to tie up a study. And this is sort of one of them. And I would let it stand as it is. A future project on this site is going to have to explore this thing and use a finalized document in the town. While I'm not intimately involved in this process, my impression is that there's a great deal of pressure on us to adopt the updated flood maps. And I think the likelihood of us not doing it is small. Can I ask? So I have asked again about the flood maps. And I have gotten the latest promises that they would be available in actually some time next week. And that means that they say that they're going to post them to the website. And we're going to receive them from AECOM. It doesn't mean it has to go through a process still with the town, it has to have a hearing, it has to be voted on. So they will not be accepted for months. But we should theoretically have them next week. But I've been promised that for a while. So it could be a moot point. But it seems that if you do look through the different options, EDC, it's all fields there. And the only one I was looking at here, B, it touches parking lot. And I have no idea what the impact is with EUI 50B because there's solar panels there. But yeah, it really is the one and only option that actually, A and B, it touches parking lots. What's the language in there again? We just didn't address how it works. No, no, what's the language in there again? Because I'm going to read it. We understand the town of Amherst is in the process of updating the flood maps. The options explored in the study are based on the new updated flood maps. If the town does not update the flood maps, options presented here would need to be revised and may no longer be feasible. And I think what everyone is trying to get is it's not all of them that it impacts, it's just a subset of them. Can you change revised to reviewed? Sure. Because then if you do, that's a completely accurate statement. All the options would have to be reviewed and they may not be feasible. I like that. Just better. I agree. Because once you review it, you'll either revise it or you won't. It suggests for review. But you're definitely going to have to review it. Yes. That's very unique. We haven't done that. I have, in page 7, the UI30, the site is smaller. Is that reflected on the cost, on the site cost? I think it's not. OK. I think that. Maybe you're right. Sounds like you. Check the backup in the estimate on that particular. OK. Yeah, I'm going to send these kind of comments later. So we don't address all these. No, that's fine. It's just a very, very minor adjustment to the UI30 project cost. I think at the same page 10, the total should be 50 and 70. So I just want to have a procedural question for how we're going to do this, because there's a lot to get through. So it seems that multiple people sent in comments. We are not aware of what other people commented, right? So the only person that has that is you and then Jesse. So I think it would help for minutes, but it would also help for the committee to be able to see what everybody else put in there and review that so that we all know what's in there. Not just to say, yeah, everything's hunky dory, because there may be disagreement, right? So or whatever. But I just want to know how we should proceed on this. And should we have a compilation edit document for everybody to look at? Or do we want to just, if you already have that, do we want to just literally just hammer through section by section right now? So that's what I want to do. The more likely scenarios since Jesse has it is to do that. To do a compilation document means I need to get them enough ahead to be able to put them together.  And so as painful as it is, we just have to kind of go through section by section. Can I ask a good question? Go ahead. I'll just focus on that. How many more comments do we have at this table that Jesse has on the comment? I have one more, a couple more.  Yeah, Maria sent in. No, no, no, no. What I'm saying is, like, we spent an hour and a half going through all of your comments. Do we have another hour and a half of comments that are sitting at this table that had never been sent in? Well, I don't know. I have two more. I only send two more comments. You have two more comments? Yes. Can we get through those two comments and then kick it to you to go through all of them? So in page 25 and 33, there are several things that I don't think they are for this project. On section 6.9, it mentions a board divided on the gym. It mentions middle school wing, lockers for classrooms inside, lockers for classrooms outside. You help them with the pictures. So I don't have to. So if we're talking about page 25, a section 6.9 that is page 161. So from 25 to 33, there are several items that should be tightened. We don't have a middle school wing. Do we have a climbing wall? 6.9. You don't have a climbing wall? I don't know. I'm asking. That's a climbing wall. The middle school. Yeah. The middle school. We often put them into elementary schools. It's a horizontal. OK. And lockers here mention lockers inside and outside classrooms. I don't know if that's relevant for elementary schools. That was discussed to a certain extent. But there are copies today. Before we dive into the detailed architectural narrative at this point, we've added an introduction to talk about the intent of this narrative is not to necessarily commit to these specifics, but to define a basic level of quality and cost that we typically see in a public elementary school. OK. But then I would remove the middle school wing reference. OK. If there's something completely boilerplate. Incorriders. Where? 161. Give me a page. Yeah, yeah. I have page 32. Middle school wing appears on page 32 of 183. It's not going to go anywhere. So that's page 168. Just let you catch up first. Yeah. So where are we here? What's the, give me a location. The section is corridors. It's about halfway down the page. The line casework. Slope tops. Slope tops. Slope tops. Slope tops. That is skull accurate. OK. So does everything else besides, do we just, are we just striking middle school wing or what are we striking here? That's all I was going to do. OK. And then on page 128 on the PDF, you can tell me which page is here. Well, all I can tell you is that it's page 128. Which one are you, where are you with section 6.9? OK. This is a table that begins with pv array comparison. 129. 128. 128 is the page before that, which is a very short page that begins with provide closest space. OK. So you're talking about this page? No. I don't have it open. What's the word? At some point it talks about soul improvement, not peers. And other places, talks about peers. Do you talk in some places about the, based on the survey that talks about? Can you show it to us though? It's going to be hard for somebody in here. Yeah. People don't know what you're talking about. 6.9. OK. Which 6.9? 6.9. 6.9. Because there's two 6.9, too. The latest 6.9. No, I mean there's two 6.9s here. There's one that begins with pricing structures, and one that begins with pricing. OK. I'm going to have to take, send it later, because I don't have it open, and I cannot do it. But it was, the main question it was, it talks about soul improvement for the construction. And at some point in the report, you are talking about peers. So I was wondering whether the soul improvement, where it's referenced in 6.9 is the peers, or different things? I had a similar comment, and maybe it's a similar comment. So the existing conditions talks about 12-inch concrete peers that are used in the extant building, right? And in our discussion there is talk about when there is a two-story building talking about peers, and when there is a one-story building, no peers. Is it the same, that my question was, are we talking about the same kind of thing, or is it something else? Yeah, right. So I can understand that's getting confused. The peers in the existing building just run from the level of the floor slap down to the footing, which is about three or four feet down. The peers we're talking about in the ground improvement strategy is an aggregate peer. It's a stack of stone that goes from the bottom of the footing down to a certain elevation. It's deep. And it's making the ground stable enough that we can put standard footing on top of it. So that is, I think, described in the technical aspects of the document, but it sounds like people are getting lost about that. And I think we're using the right technical words, but we could include an explanation somewhere, perhaps in the existing foundation summary that talks about peers. These are different from the aggregate peers described in the geotechnical, or in the geotechnical as well. We could include an explanation. This is a different kind of peer than an existing building. Would that be helpful? I think so because, I mean, in the past Richard has talked about, oh, we thought we might have to do something, but we don't have to do that. Piles. Piles. Piles. It's technical now. And I just want to make sure that people aren't confused. Like now we're going back and saying, oh, we need the piles. So we don't need the piles. We just need this. This is the same kind of work that you have been talking about. It is different than what is there now, but it is not the... It's not the more... I think we just need some clarity on that because it's gotten technical. Peers versus piles. And I think we'd put it in both places then. Yeah. And sometimes you talk about ground improvement and sometimes you talk about peers. So I think... Well, that may be accurate because on top of your ground improvement strategy, which is aggregate peers, you would have concrete peers to go from your footing up to your slab on grade. Right. Sorry, that's confusing, but that's... No, no, no. Okay. Just as long as you... Having a reality-based description of a kind of located project is okay. Okay. So we'll go ahead and try to provide some more sort of clues as to what we're talking about and make it more readable. That was your two comments. Okay. No, no, I just... No, I didn't mean it that way. I didn't mean it that way. Are you sure? We should comment. Everybody has a timer. Everybody gets a complete... Yeah, it was just literally a little chat on it. That's the timer. That's just what it means to be around. There you go. So we can run through... So other comments I received. Okay. I received many, many comments from Anthony and they were all very helpful, but they were all copy editing. Would you agree? Yes, I would say, yeah. I see no need to talk about any of them. Nope. Because they're all really good, but no one's going to argue when my spelling is wrong and commas are wrong. So let's move past those. From Heather, I received a comment about the community outreach, but I think we dealt with that. From Maria, I received both copy editing and some content, which some we've discussed. I think it makes sense to just run through Maria's comments, and that would be all of the comments that I received. So if we can just briefly... I... Didn't you have more? I had two more. They might have made it all the way. I'm sorry, continue. They were... The Appendix... The Accessibility Report... The Appendix... It's a draft version of it. I believe there's a final version of it. Has that been released? Yes. They've... I know Mike forwarded on to me, and I am 90% certain I've sent it on to Jesse. I might have just... I mean, they've done their work months ago. Totally. I'd be very surprised. It's done. Yeah. I'd like to link that for more. Oh, okay. You can send me the link. Yeah. Because I got the draft, but I did not... So you can get that. I will start asking now, because I know you asked me before, and then you just lost that. And the other comment I had was in the introduction, in the geotechnical section, we don't talk about groundwater at all. And that's why I think that's an important thing to have in the introduction. Because that's one of the primary things that the public is interested in, to know when it comes to the feasibility of building on this site. Okay. I understand what you're saying. We could strengthen this. I'm going to read what we have in the introduction for geotechnical, and then you can talk a little bit about how to best strengthen it. Actually, it's interesting. I think I would... I read through that earlier, and didn't really give it much spot. But I agree that the funny thing about the geotechnical paragraph is it leans entirely on... So based on... Like, if you were thinking, this is a complete thought, it'd say, so based on what was found, here's how it can be managed. And there's not even a sentence at the beginning to say, here was what was found, and then they hear how it can be managed. So it just needs to be some sort of introductory sentence. Am I right? Yeah, I mean, there are a lot of talks about that. I mean, do you just want to read what's there? I would... Maybe everybody has in front of it. Is this page six? Page six, yes. The results of the geotechnical investigations identify recommendations for ground improvements for the foundations of a new two-story building at a cost of about 1% of the total project cost. Foundations for a one-story construction would be conventional spread footings. Blasting is not required, and the cost associated with mass rock removal is also not anticipated for the site. Groundwater can be managed utilizing new construction techniques. C-section 4.5 for a more detailed analysis of geotechnical issues. So there actually is one sentence in there that talks about groundwater, which... Yeah. Right. I think adding what... I don't know. Yeah, no, as you said, what the question would be, normally based on what follows, what is in here, you'd have at least an introductory sentence characterizing what was found. Right. With regard to groundwater, it just shows up as something that can be managed, but it doesn't talk about a concern. So we could try to describe what's described elsewhere in terms of what they found in terms of groundwater. I mean, it's simply as possible, since the... Yeah, one sentence more, I'm thinking. So if we go to... I mean, it references section 4.5. Which does a good job of talking about it. Yeah. So there's some summation. Yeah. You know... Yeah. Could pull that over. Yeah, summary sentence in there. Yeah. That'd be the ideal thing to do, because you don't want to do creative writing really in the same executive summary you want specifically to be referencing what's already in the report. Right. Yeah. Okay. Okay, cool. I think the thing is, it says at the cost of about 1%, I think it's less than 1%. It probably varies a little bit between options. I'd rather read that because we're doing more executive level stuff. I don't want to get into the fractions of the percentage, we're talking about different costs for each option. Okay. And at the feasibility study level, that's fine, great enough, because any one of these things takes a lot of time, and it's a lot of time, and it takes a lot of time, and it takes a lot of time, and it takes a lot of time. So any one of these things taken further, those numbers could change. Forgive me if you're doing this, Jonathan. Yeah. But was that, were those your comments? I had mine too, and that was it. Now we're going to go back to you to go back through Maria's comments. I'm just keeping this in mind. That's all of them, right? That's all you've received. That's true. I forgot about two, and I apologize. Should we start from the last one or the first one? No, you take the con, you're controlling. All right, I'm in charge. Section 6.9, I want to start there, because it says yay, the summary map. So it's repeated there, and it's something you were looking for as you were reading through the report earlier. Yes. To be in a different place. That's a good question. So we're referring to the existing conditions summary map where we have the sitemap and the wetlands lines. We put it in with the other diagrams in section 6.9, where all the diagrams are. We could put it up earlier, perhaps, in the site development section. It could show up there. Does it make sense to have it like the black and white instead of the black and white? That screenshot? Go there. Maybe. And my other comment was, I like the full page one, just because it seems easier to read. The text in there, it probably needs a little bit of a caption. Sure. But yeah, I mean, if that can... I have one comment about the figure. Sometimes the lines are above the fields, and sometimes they're below the fields. We didn't one figure. Let me see. Yeah, so here in page... 142. Are you talking about just like what... on the computer graphics? Sometimes in the computer graphics sometimes the lines are above the fields sometimes the lines are below the fields. I'm on page 142. So like on the top right baseball fields, the line goes below the fields, but on the smaller baseball field the line goes above the field. Oh, I see what you're saying. That's a minor obsessive. Okay. All right, so we're going to... You're talking about moving the large map, that map, to replace the black one? Yeah, sure. Is there anything you were trying to prove or point out through that black one that you're losing by switching one? I don't think so. I think it's probably a good idea.  Yeah. What page was that where the black one was? 56. Keep rolling. Yes. Identify... Okay, page 143 and 144. Identify the table which is EY50 and the other EY30 in the titles. That seems pretty doable. And could you also put... I might not have sent it in my notes but as I was going through. We have the red state scope boundary line. It says it here, right? EY50, EY30. What page do you want? It's a different page, though. Oh, wait. Are you doing 143 in the PDF? 143 of... Yeah, 6.9, page 143. The full page graphs. The full page ones, yeah. Just a minor point. We know what the red lines are that they're the site scope boundary lines but I don't think it's ever... It says it real small right there. So I can make it bigger.  No one recently is going to be able to read that. No, I get it, but that makes sense. Oh, construction... Really tiny. Got it. Okay. Page 151, identify EY50. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now we're in the introduction. There's a couple text edits, but as far as delete, but I'm not going to even go through these. We're just going to leave it to English. Yeah, and then... What page is this? Page 5. I suggested, when we were talking about the wetlands, moving wetlands, just saying, or you can revise what you've got and how well you can revise the field stuff. Yes. Possibly. Yeah. And I don't care if it says possibly, that's fine. Yeah. So did you all follow... The bottom of page 5, a note on process, the options were initially conceived and developed a lot, right? Is that where you are? Yeah, that paragraph. No, I got it. Page 6. Yep, yes. Page 6, in the introduction, we say there are many restrictions, and we'd rather go with some restrictions. And I'm fine with that. Some are many. The site is sufficiently at, after that sentence, the expansive, relatively flat topography provides large areas for outdoor play, space, and fields. And that's where we say the site is sufficiently large enough to allow setbacks. And I think this writing is fine. Is that section? This isn't section 6. It's under the site conclusions. And it's just elaborating a little bit on basically the same idea we have, saying that the, we say the site is large enough, and the idea is to say it's an expansive, relatively flat topography that provides large areas for outdoor play, space, and fields. Same constant. So I'm happy to do that. The project costs still on the same page. What was the page number again? Page 6. Oh, next page. All the way in the front. Oh, yeah, we're back to the introduction now. We're really jumping around there. Just going in the order bit. It's okay. Where is the project cost still? Oh, here it is. It's under the net zero bylaw. Yeah. This is what we discussed earlier. This is what we discussed already. Page 30. So we're not going over that again. We already talked about it. So if I'm right, great. If I'm wrong, fine. Page 7. There was a fair, well, there was some overlap between multiple comments. Yeah. Partly it's just me now recognizing which comment means what. Page 7. Well, either method, potential cost savings. So under project delivery method. Right. So we had 10% lower total project costs. So just spell it out that GC is 10% lower than CNA. Yes. I can do that. Okay. Now we're going to jump to section 6. Wait a minute. One more thing. Gross and net project costs. Just in there to talk about I think I suggested adding reimbursement from the MSBA can be maximized by taking advantage of various incentives including those for green efficient building, renovation reuse and maintenance best practices just to kind of sum up the reimbursement thing. We can make a link to the table. Okay. Yeah, that's part of the MSBA's whole system of incentivization. So we could summarize it. There is part of the conclusions. We'll go to page 1 and section 6. Actually page 3 in section 6. Page 120. Yes. Okay. Now we're talking about renewable energy systems. I'm now confused about this. If we can't do power purchase agreements. It's a whole power purchase thing. We already discussed probably. Okay. Page 7. I think it's to make it clear that it's only to cover the new constructions I think for A and B. Number of new fuels to fuels that take place on site. That only applies the bylaw only requires for option A. That's completely new building. I don't understand the question. One more time. I'm Mr. Energy Bylaw It says no burning of fossil fuels shall take place on the site. That's for completely new building. All the new construction areas cannot run fossil fuels. So that affects the additions and the new. Yes. But I think it has to be clear with the new construction areas because here it says part 10 to the four world school study. Okay. Okay. They're on to page 7 now. Which is past and at zero. It's right smack in. It's in that the EUI 50 versus 30. Yeah. Go four pages ahead page 7 of that section. So this is basically same stuff different location 50, 30. What was the comment? What was the comment? The comment is asking on page 7 does the MSP reimburse for the cost of solar panels? If not, we need to make sure. So we already talked about solar panels. So I think this one's covered. Why don't you read them to yourself and figure out whether we need to talk to them and then mention it if we need to. I'm not sure to be a jerk but I'm like I don't want to keep circling through things we already talked about. Page 10 and 11. Yeah. Are people okay with that? Doings. This is the multi I was okay with everything we talked about so far. All right. That's how those weren't. I'm assuming as we're rolling if there's a disagreement we're talking about at the time. Yes. If there isn't a disagreement that it means people agree. I'm sorry. I realize I'm co-facilitating this. That's all right. Page 11 is just English. We'll spell out the acronyms. Yep. And in page 11 I wanted to include 465 pre-case 6 students in the design options on the table on the top. What page are we on? It says page 11. Just to clarify that 465 is pre-case 6. Pre-case 6 because it's different footprint area if you have 465 kindergarten through 6th grade than if you have pre-case through 6th. We can have pre-case 6 in the top of this table. Doesn't matter if we find the right pre-case 6. Oh yeah. That's good. No problem with that. The next page there's something about lease info on this page. Yeah. I think this is another place where it's owned versus lease. Yeah. But the other comment I had on this table is the option that we have listed the Fort River option A owned PV or lease PV is an EUI 30 option. Right? Yes. And I think we just need to clarify whether the benchmarks do we know if, I mean it would be nice if we knew the other schools that MSBA have done. Are they EUI 30 or are they conventional? Chances are they're higher EUI because we're looking forward and those projects are behind us. Yeah. So I think it's noteworthy because as you're comparing these two things it's good to know that what you're saying is our EUI 30 option compares favorably to previous EUI 50 options if that's what you're if that's one of the points. Correct. We could have a master's I mean you could put an asterisk but frankly since you have a narrative description at the top you would probably be assuming anyone reads the narrative description that's to me where you want to put that information because you're saying that you're introducing that it's an EUI 30 and then you're comparing it to other projects I think you'd want to say those projects if you're not absolutely positive you'd say you know almost certainly we're done at the higher EUI at least 50. Something like that. Yeah but I think it has to be clear on the table because many people Jesse put it both places. I think this is a comment I have for general throughout the report not many figures have captions or reference on the tables and many times when you are reading something you look at the picture you look at the caption and then you look at the text at least that's how I read documents and many times I read documents so if the figures have no self-explanatory then you have to start reading many places to try to understand what things so maybe add to more of the figures a description I don't know if this is how it's done in architecture but in the reports I write the figures all are self-explanatory. So both places let's make it as self-explanatory as possible. Okay now we're going to move to section four it's a small question here but it does reference other people in the group. Page two and the statement is with regard to the Amherst Pellum Regional School District which is listed in the second sentence there on page 56 in page two of section four and the question is should it just be Amherst School District in this case? This is really a question for you to clarify especially with the recent stuff going on about regionalization. It's really only the Amherst School District it's the elementary schools it's just the Amherst School District we have a supervisor reunion solely for the purposes of hiring a superintendent include both Amherst and Pellum but when we're talking about this building and district it's only the Amherst School District and regionalization is off the table right now right well it's not no no no it hasn't happened yet I thought what I read made it sound like it was actually it's funny the way I read what I read was that the regionalization board was openly deliberating on the subject just by the fact that we really should not comment on what I wasn't editorializing it anyway despite the sound of my voice moving right along on the same page though there's a comment that we should delete the sentence that says the section of town is much less dense and has a lot of open space and natural resources it's not essential to our analysis in any way so I think we can delete that it's true we haven't done any studies of catchment area density relative to the town school district because I don't know compared to what the other parts of town that are equally dense if you look at the following map you can see there are a lot of people around there so I'm happy to make that change we'll do it I had a request for page 6 page 60 of the report where you have the topography I think we know this map pretty well and I can distinguish where the school is if you can overlay shady where the school is currently situated yes that's one of Maria's comments here and we'll do that no problem it's easy insert figure caption on page 8 we can add a caption to the rare species diagram on page 8 that's not a problem I think you'd all agree with that again for clarity on page 10 make the graphic more clear by using an arrow to connect the Fort River to page 64 yes and then there's a little language adjustment for the purposes changes to by the town does that affect meaning or is that just no that's a typo but I did suggest some re-wording about the flood plain I suggested in that paragraph eliminating everything from eliminating on and inserting the following language as a suggestion flood insurance would therefore not be necessary if the oh flood insurance would therefore not be necessary period the previous 1983 flood plain mapping would only I say here would only have impacted option A but that might we might want to get a little fuzzy there because it's actually A and B for parking lot if the anticipated updates were not accepted this option would require revision it's kind of the same wordage review review that's it's it just happened to be in two places right we don't really speak too much about options in section 4 the options come in later in the report we can we can't start to tie it well you say the development options oppose the section 6 so you're referring to options actually generally no no I know but if you talk about reviewing them then that's also general but at least it ties it together okay so we'll bring the reviewing so I'm going to play a little bit of timekeeper we are currently scheduled to go until 10.15 it's now 10 o'clock but we're looking to try to vote on this today? well we'll see I would like to do that if we can how many more comments are there? not a ton as I recall we've discussed a lot of them already there's about 10 11 the red outline change to indicates the boundaries of forward school site so we're just adding a comment to that diagram making it more clear suggest moving the photographs to the appendix 15 page 66 page page 69 69 forward we have most of the reports at the back and here showing all these pictures here I think makes the flow we have all the infrastructural reports and conditions at the back yeah but that's because they're not our original work generally I think this works well here I guess the photos being there didn't bother me no I think this is good because also it goes through all of the site plans stuff afterwards okay I think I'm hearing maybe it's okay where it is I feel like it's okay too but I'll do what the group wants to do give us a suggestion okay on page 75 page 21 making a legend visible we can do that the figure on the top right yeah we need to same thing captions and then the other pages you can read and then the only other comment I had this was page 87 it's the same thing we've already talked about pierce piles clarification we're gonna do that section 5 all options meet the first trigger is this true so you're talking about structural capacity of the existing structure as it was reviewed by the structural engineer talking about whether certain triggers in the building code are met I believe it is true I believe that's what it says in the narrative that all options meet the first trigger with page 11 so we're on page 116 and I just want to I got a little confused and maybe just a little clarity that we talked about oh we have the first trigger yes meet all of these three things just to maybe be just like blatantly say like and they all do except for option F only option F does not meet this right because option F is not doing reconfiguration of over 50% of the building area otherwise if they all meet it I think we should just be clear about it and say that first trigger is met by everything but our option F and it gets a little confusing because we've got these design categories that have letters too it's just a little technically confusing that's all for 5 maybe just to distinguish the buildings from these building categories can you put them in italic or some other font so that but what in my town the system decides categories B, C, D, E or F either I mean so to distinguish between options A, B, C, D, F of the buildings or don't put them in capital letters put them in I don't know how you count all that is even breathing in a different way you have to think twice I'm okay but just what are you thinking right now? I'm thinking okay I get the point about option F not being clearly noted as not meeting the first trigger so I can add that comment here as for describing seismic design categories different from options they're labeled seismic design categories so I feel like that's clear I don't know I could italic as well when you're getting into to me when you're getting into certain technical weeds it's going to be people are going to have to read it closely it's just unfortunately it's going to be impossible to make it perfectly intelligible to the laborers so where are you next? we're into section 3 section 2 had no comments page 37 yes there's a comment about the square footage this 85,000 square feet note that other options have other values we could go into explaining why there are discrepancies in the values of the different options oh no I didn't want to do that I just wanted to note that these numbers are for option A and the others are slightly different so people aren't confused that was all I don't think we have to add any like other numbers to hear it's nice it's just to say these are option A that's all no problem it's almost something you'd put in the footnote there with the caption underneath the table that would be easy to do I would say again 3k for 65 on the caption okay we can do that okay we're getting through it okay we will note that our music rooms which are intermittently used could be used multi-purpose areas for other things as well anyone have an issue with that yep at the bottom of page 3 we'll adjust the wildwood population to 420 from 400 I believe our notes at 400 but 420 that's what it really is we'll use that on page 4 we'll add a comment indicating the need for separate administration space for pre-k which makes sense to me no objections page 5 through 16 will change the order of the space summaries probably reorient them in my binder to start with 465 and go down to 315 since 465 is our most frequent and then we're into section 8 the appendices page 62 the estimate I would expect why does option C list 10,000 square foot for wetlands narrative says 3,000 square foot it needs to be double the amount of wetlands because town bylaw requires the oh no I get that but in the previous edition it said 3,000 and then doing 5,000, 6,000 and it just changed to 10,000 so did you just figure out that you actually increased to 5 in this version identified additional wetlands that's fine I just want to make sure that I just want to it was different from the previous and so then that's correctly reflected in the estimate as 10,000 that's fine, that was my only question there we wanted to have a summary map we've discussed that already page 160 I had a brief statement to indicate the Gail Rouge study was conducted as a result of the separate I thought we had that introduction to the Gail study no just so it's clear why because it's weird to have the group report be by a different consultant than the other space than the other existing conditions do you guys know what I'm talking about? yes, there was a previous study that got included and you're just making note of that you're going to need to flip to find that comment and just put it out I'm not going to make sense it's driving me nuts because I probably did that and it dropped out sorry there's a type on page 205 so I've duplicated A in the second paragraph that's a tip we'll get that I have one more substantive thing which I noticed actually since I sent you the things and on page 48 and I don't know why this is the first time I've noticed it but this total gross area this went with all the amphogerty stuff option B has enormous total gross area compared to the others it's in the 100,000 range as opposed to the 80,000 so was that just an upsies or is that for real so like the total near the bottom of the table it also makes the the cost per square foot that cell is picking up the ground improvement right, I thought so so that's just the type of we'll get that and it will change the cost per square foot significantly because that's just a division correct it's just reporting the wrong cost per square foot it just looked wonky I don't think that cost per square foot is reported elsewhere no but if we do the table differently it will be if we change that the big summary table to be cost per square feet instead of construction costs then it would be reported elsewhere yeah, right okay, I got that that's a typo any others okay, we're done with that process I think we're done with that process and I'm going to preface my discussion about voting on this with the, you know, in a sense this is not going to be complete today because Jeff has got to go away and do all the typos and whatnot and at some point we're going to have to incorporate the outcome of the other estimating process but I'm hoping we can kind of, if folks are amenable to kind of vote that we're comfortable with this as our final draft that we'll get yes, exactly that's a good way to put it can I have a motion or do we want to talk about it first? I have a minor concern about the optics we have a couple of people that have not waited on this at all for this committee the difficulty of dragging them in here it's too great to really end up hitting that but I don't love the fact that we're not in full strength of work for this thing I agree with your concern we provided options for people to be able to dial in today you know we can have two sending comments exactly you know I can also be talked out of voting on it today but if we can begin to move it on I would like us to do that we're still going to have to have some housekeeping meetings to close out some items Eric move to accept the current draft as edited or amended can I read your second is it? yes we've given a million opportunities for people to weigh in on this thing multiple times multiple meetings if they're not here I think people had a big concern not to mention the fact that I imagine if somebody came forward with a significant not editing but non-editorial concern that actually said oh my god you missed something at page 78 who amongst us is not going to look and say pulling profit can't believe we missed that let's change it no one's going to be unreasonable like that okay whatever Eric's motion any discussion I would like to see maybe I'm going back and they show up there might be a replacement of the solar panels I think I think we have to fear I think that's part of the revision that's part of the revision that's already been you're already doing it that's one of the things we just accepted that's why it was accepted and edited and with all the small grammatical edits that need to be made as well all in favor motion passes were we scheduled originally to meet with the school committee very soon yes and I've talked a little bit about so moving on to the next item which is meetings with other groups I can give a little bit of an update Mike still has a item in his agenda for the next meeting which is I think a week from next week literally next week but he's given me a like 10 or 15 minutes slot so it's really it's not going to be a deep dive into this and I think that's okay at this point in the sense that we still need to go through the final costing option this is me speaking for myself now it's kind of an update saying we're nearly done and highlighting the at least in my head highlighting the items that are still open and giving a sense of the timeline for that from the school committee update presentation isn't the presentation because I don't think we're quite there yet I think we should probably have the outcome of the cost so you wouldn't want us there you wouldn't need the architect there I don't think so no I'm perfectly comfortable going and doing a 10 or 15 minute brief kind of update and then when we have the final data the final piece of data and the great big book dropping it dramatically on the table and waking everybody up but that that would have to be scheduled a little later once we have the outcome of that and we're all going to have to get back together to talk about that as well and it's really important to be able to advertise to the public that's really our kind of close out presentation to the public too so I would like the opportunity to advertise it in a press release and say we're going to present our final report you should show up as part of that audience so if we can't do that next week because we can't advertise it now there isn't enough time and we're not quite there yet now also we need the final report it has to be the final report which relates to the question of how many of these are we actually going to get bound up somewhat and I think we'd need a couple at least one for the library one to actually hand off at least one to hand off to the school committee I don't know of other places the superintendent's office? or is that one in the same with the school committee or is that two different I don't think that somebody, that school committee member is going to call let it live in the is there anywhere in the town hall I think the town hall needs one I don't know if we need a physical copy you might just want the digital that's the thing, a lot of these things today you print very few physically you want the physical one to actually reference in a place and that's where I think one for the library and one for Mike's office libraries, school district can you believe that question whether it's a need for a third or fourth copy open because like maybe but also, yeah because we should ask the question it's also maybe the superintendent one facilities director of one other copy like literally, in which case why wouldn't we who's going to ask that question so we have that resolved but what about item three on our little review of the town council so I have emailed back and forth a little bit with Lynn Grishimer, the chair and tentatively they're going to put something on their calendar for the meeting they're having July 1st she wants to limit it to 15 minutes and so it would have to be kind of a brief presentation I think we need to talk when we have more time about what that presentation is whether TSKP is coming where we feel like we want to have TSKP come and make that presentation or if it's some members of the committee doing that and so we'll talk a little bit about how or we can spend more time at a future meeting Paul forwarded me the correspondence at 15 minutes with no opportunity for no dedicated public comment period I don't know that it's worth it to make a big thing of it and have TSKP come yeah I think that the answer to that is we get more than 15 minutes I think this is important this project for future projects for a few other town projects I think we should have TSKP there I think we should have the time that we need to do it in that case I'd say at the July 1 meeting we ask them to schedule us for something bigger I mean we can't make them give us more time but we can encourage it this is the last thing on their mind right now unfortunately it will be done by then so this will be post budget I think they need to hear it 15 minutes you could basically read off the executive summary yeah and if we feel like that's the executive summary like I don't seems to be quite fair I guess one of the things I'd love to know see if you've had email responses one yes it's a funny question to ask but I can't figure out whether this is just just because it's so low they're just really busy with other things and they just can't share the time I was a little I'll say this on camera a little passive aggressive in my email to her because Paul hadn't gotten back to me so I said could you at least respond to me and say whether you want us to come and Anthony's got them so you can tell me if I'm mischaracterizing my own statements mostly so that we could actually go or otherwise and personally I could be comfortable either doing a 15 minute presentation and saying if you want a deeper dive we'll bring TESKP back or saying if you only can give us 15 minutes now then maybe we should wait until you can give us more time well this information is available on our reports I mean it's an advertisement to advertise what's available I don't think you need to make everybody on the council who may or may not have particular interest in the subject make them sit through that you're saying this information is available this is where you can go get it this is the work we did and I think you can cover all of that in 15 minutes the impression that Lynn gave in her email was that council members attended our public events the implication was that she felt like she had heard a lot so I don't know Irina? I think we put a lot of effort but maybe the other effort that everyone we have a lot of material to be instructive and we can feed a lot the opinions that you were saying is the statement of interest so I think it's a very short vision saying just how we can be the executive that's it. I think we have to have done for questions and answers but most likely they're going to have questions and I think we went a little bit deeper because we know back and forth what does it mean the age the challenge is ultimately it's the town council's decision how they want to run their own meetings and so the reason I asked my question about is what you want is you want the decision that's made by the council to not be I don't mean it's negatively pejoratively I'm just saying factually you don't want it to be an off the cuff decision where after the fact they say maybe you would have liked to have gotten the consultants in while we could have under contract to meet with us so you want it to be a considered decision as opposed to sort of an off the cuff one but do you want to try you circling back on this I don't mind at all I mean July one is still I have comment do we need quorum for that I won't well it would all depend upon what the nature of it is I think we can make I don't think it would be a joint meeting so the the sure answer is no we don't need to have quorum for that folks can attend who want to attend in fact we'd probably be careful honestly to not have quorum so we didn't accidentally have a joint meeting and if it's TSD presenting that's particularly easy Maria I really want to argue strongly for having more formal more complete presentation we are going to be delivering this product to the school committee but it is equally important to deliver this to the town there have been multiple questions by town counselors at various venues about the work that we're doing and we would have done I think a presentation to town meeting I think this needs to get to the council in complete form given that does it make sense for people who feel it way to contact their counselors and have them encourage putting us on the agenda that is true that's another way of working for us I think if there's a if the sentiment that you have we're wrapping up we promise I did put this for another group I put you guys still 10 and they're starting to arrive okay yes we will close out and with that we don't have time to review it we have their possibly last invoice are we ready with the invoice for TSKP second all in favor there if there's no everything else will table we're going to do a couple housekeeping we need to go to adjourn lose to adjourn all in favor