All right. You are recording. Hey, good morning, everyone. This is the March 4th. It's hard to believe it's March, but March 4th meeting of the elementary school building committee. As chair, one of my first orders of business is to call out the names of the committee members to make sure they can hear and be heard. And we do have a quorum. So I'm just going to call out the names as I see them on the screen, rather than alphabetically, Sean. Yes, I can hear you. Paul. Present. Phoebe. Yes, hi. Hi there, Ben. Present. Jonathan. Mike. Tammy. Rupert. Simone. Present. And Alicia. Present. I have, I just want to let everyone know we have one new member she hasn't signed on yet, but Angelica Bernal was appointed by the council on Monday, and I expect her to join. And so when she does join, I will introduce her. So we have a, I get everyone. I think I got everyone. So we have a quite full agenda today, Margaret can pull up the agenda and then she has some opening description of where we are right now in terms of the document that we're pulling together. I'm just going to leave it to me from the agenda. Margaret's just going to lead off with what is in the preliminary design program, basically the outline, and then the rest of the meeting will be Danisco presenting the initial very preliminary very rough comparative costs, that go with the most recent space summary. And, and if we have time, we'll do the traffic study. There actually probably isn't a report from the net zero subcommittee because we haven't met again since the last report. So I think we will, with that Margaret, I'm going to turn the meeting over to you to start with the outline. Yep. So can everybody see this. Yeah, yeah. Okay, just shout out if you can make it a little bit bigger. So this is, you know, just sort of as a reminder. So what we're doing today, which is really critical part of the step is looking for the first time at these sort of broad, very conservative estimates for the project that allow us to sort of look at how different options are comparing to each other. Next week, the reason I'm bringing this up is that next week on the 11th we are meeting again to review with the committee the overview of what's in the preliminary design program. So this is a very rolled up version of what is it what that table of contents looks like. And I wanted to share it because, you know, Phoebe think you asked a really good question. What are we supposed to be looking at because this is to sort of try to point you to this. Most of the stuff that's on here so this introductory piece is just background information about the project the ed program we've been talking about the space summary we've been talking about the evaluation of existing conditions is basically a summary and there's quite a few items they have to address. The things that we will focus on next week are these highlighted items which is a little bit more about the site development because that's the sort of key piece about how these two projects are different and costs. And then we're going to be they're going to be walking in detail through the the alternatives. And then we're going to have more development. So, it's this document ultimately is a big document and we will be able to get most of it out to you in a draft form the goal is to submit to the MSBA on March 15. And to make sure that you all understand that one of my roles as the opium is to review it all. So if you're looking at just the quantity of it and going Holy cow. How much of this do I have to digest. I just want you to point you to section six, and say this is where the role. This is the role of the building committee is to review and comment on the way the designers are approaching it and to confirm that you understand the design thinking. So with that, you know, I'm going to turn this over to Donna. Well, does anybody have any questions about that first of all, before I turn it over to Donna. Okay, I don't see any hands. I'm going to turn it over to Donna obviously a big piece of this this morning is looking at the cost piece although they have a lot more content that they're going to discuss so I just want to reiterate, you know, these are what we're looking at as order of magnitude costs, and what they're doing at this level is testing alternatives that meet the educational program and fit on the site and trying to give you a basis of comparison for those costs. I just wait just a second Margaret maybe does have her hand up. Okay. Just very briefly I'm wondering when we can expect to receive everything that we're going to be going over since it's only a week away. Yeah, sure. That's okay. So, really this what what you're seeing today is as far as the alternatives is what we'll be presenting next week so so this is really just to give you a heads up, let's take time to look through it. And, and the relative costs from a comparison perspective so next week is really going to be very much the same, unless the school committee changes anything in the square footage of the building. Everything else will pretty much be the same. So you'll just they'll be in final form next week, but what you're seeing today is pretty much what we'll be providing next week unless we tweak any of the assumptions that we've made. And so our goal is to have something by Wednesday evening. So you'll probably well you all have daytime jobs to so you know Wednesday evening Thursday is when our goal is to have it to you but what you're seeing today is will not change much at all from what we'll be presenting and sharing with you. And I just, just to build on that comment and your question Phoebe, I think as they go through the estimates, the more questions we can ask on what were your assumptions about this option and that option, the clear will be about what we're comparing, you know, which is the you know what are these, it says add rena when it says new but there's a lot that's underneath that you know what exactly was assumed here. So I think we can both ask questions and after Donna's presented and get a fuller understanding of what lies underneath what we're now seeing. So I think we are ready to turn it over to Donna. I'm not seeing any other hands. All right, can everyone see this. Yep. Okay, I must have been a Sweden issue last week. Okay, so thanks everyone and and I appreciate Margaret and Kathy really trying to lay the groundwork I think what's important to know. And I'm going to try to go through quickly because I think everyone is has had a chance to quickly look at some of the costs, and I try to actually probably respond to questions more than you know spend a lot of time in a presentation but again, this is the first step in the MSBA process, and it's a very thoughtful step. The preliminary design program truly is intended to establish the educational program understand your existing conditions, both within the buildings in the sites and we think we've captured those well, and those will be. Maybe we can talk a little bit more as we talk about the cost options as it relates to each of the sites to establish the design parameters that that's a little loose. And now we understand the town's initiatives for net zero so we've incorporated those costs into this but we haven't even really started to put together. We don't have a gross square footage of the building yet we're making certain assumptions of course, and we haven't really started to lay out the the relation spatial relationships and adjacencies. We've put some thought into all of this without fully working everything out so these really are evaluation of alternatives their concepts there for comparison purposes only we have had to use our, you know, best practices as we started with each of the options and what goes into each of the. I don't even want to call them cost estimates because we really don't have a design yet. So, the purpose of the preliminary design program is truly to establish and determine which alternatives are not worthy of further consideration, and which alternatives are not worthy of further study, as we finish up our schematic preferred schematic report or study. I think Jonathan has his hand up. It's a quick one I won't interrupt things for a long time I'm just trying to remember where in the context of decisions and schedules. When do we select a site. Do we get selected ahead of or after narrowing down options or are those two things simultaneous or or at different times. Oh, thank you Jonathan so what once we finish the PDP and really what we're, we're recommending I think everyone is recommending. I'm getting ahead of myself, but to continue to evaluate and explore in more detail, both renovation and new construction both at Wildwood and Fort River at towards the end of preferred schematic report which would be in June. The town has to select their preferred solution. So, it's one of those four options right renovation addition new or new construction either at Wildwood or at Fort River. So that will be at in June which we say to MSBA look we've explored all of these options and we believe the most educationally appropriate and cost effective solution for the town is X. And then we will fully develop the basis of design and really get into the final layout site design etc during schematic design. That answers your question. All right. So, excuse me. Yes, Kathy. Could we recognize Allison and Angelica have just both joined the meeting. Absolutely. Sorry, I saw that Angelica was trying to get us. Same. Angelica are. Is she actually do we pull her in. She's in she and Allison are both joining the meeting. Okay, I want to recognize Allison Estes and make sure that she can hear and be heard as a committee member and welcome Angelica are new and exciting committee member Angelica and in the future we will be you'll be getting a regular zoom link I'm sorry that you didn't get one and an alert. Thank you for joining us. Basically, as, as you know we've been saying for the past couple months the educational program is really the first important first step in establishing the size of the building and understanding space relationships adjacencies. And then the program defines the space needs and then again the total square footage of the project. MSBA, the town of Amherst has entered into an agreement to evaluate both a Fort River only school model which is for 165 students and a combined Fort River and Wildwood school which we've agreed to 575 students and so these are the two options. Enrollment options that we have reviewed. So again just really quickly, you know you take a Fort River elementary school only with 165 students. This in turn generates 12 gen ed classrooms per grade, and then a combined Fort River and Wildwood school with again class size policy generates five classrooms per grade. So this is, you know, one or a large component of the overall program requirements for for the school. And so what we want to show here is, we came before you a few weeks ago with the total square footage of the building of 113,765. We went back and we've studied it more. We spent a little more time reducing some areas where we felt were appropriate but weren't going to compromise the program. And we presented the second column here to the school committee on February 27. And so, right now where it stands is the total program areas 70,500, and the gross square footage is 105,750. So this is the basis of the costs that we've put together and we'll be going before the school committee on Tuesday for them to approve modify and finalize the ed program. But you can see that a lot of space has been reduced. And I don't know if it's appropriate if you want me to pause and have a conversation about this now. Maybe I'll just ask that question. I'm looking to see if there are any hands. Press the raise hand button if anyone has a question or comment. Angelica. Yes, good morning everybody. I was wondering if you could speak more to the differences in sizes, because I see like, for instance with a special education, it's 850 feet and I know you mentioned that one of the criteria was to make sure that it didn't impact the needs. So I wanted to hear more a little bit more about that criteria, and how that was balanced out with reductions in other areas. Sure. So, the some some of the, what you'll see consistently through this is the full size classrooms whether it was for core academic or for special ed were 950 square feet. So talking through this more understanding your class size policy, we agree that it was fine to reduce the classroom size from 950 to 500 to 900 reducing each classroom by 50 square feet. So anything that was a full size classroom was reduced by 50 feet. Also working with Dr Morris and he if he if you feel it's appropriate he can jump into it more. We spent a little more time looking at the learning centers. We've made some modifications there, not compromising the program but again recognizing the number of people both students and staff in those spaces, as well as the OTP T division and hearing office, and then the psychologist space. We're confident that the reductions do not compromise the program. It was just a further deep dive on how would it would fit in the program. Mike. Just briefly, I think we went over this and longer to tail at the last school committee meeting and Joanne Smith and February where they're with me from the student services office. But some of it was just looking at different spaces like the learning centers, there was reduction but really was a reorganization of thinking about having one dedicated space per grade level and then a swing space because we know more special education students in a larger school that can be accommodated so it was kind of having some smaller spaces, and some larger spaces and there was a net reduction but it really matched our programming. And I think the same is true like the psychologist space like a cracker farm is very small and that's because that space is typically used for one on one evaluations. For more small group work or there's other offices or other spaces that that person would use so it's trying to find efficiencies where we could being conscious of space and cost but we feel like I feel I'll speak for myself. I feel like we've gotten to the place of the right balance. I think any more reductions in that area to your point or the question would significantly affect our programming. But I think these ones were reductions we can make to trim that they felt okay to myself and Joanne and Fay. So, we'll see how that goes there is another school can be meeting on Tuesday night and, you know, I think Angelica view or others have concerns you know I think that'd be a great place to express them because they do plan to vote on Tuesday. So I see both Sean and Allison's hand or up or Allison are you going to be talking to this point. So, Sean is so right if I call on Allison first. Yeah, go go right ahead that's fine. I just wanted, I just wanted to ask Mike, because I kind of know the answer but I just want to confirm. We are designing for 575 students K through five. I'm pretty sure Wildwood has K through five, like about 300 students and door it was about the same so it's 575 smaller than what we would have now. I think it is a bit smaller than the Romans I can pull them up in a second so there was a reduction I think as it relates to special ed I think the thing worth noting is well it is a modest reduction students I'll get you the numbers within. I just want to point out that, yeah, right now the initial design 113,000 square feet for 575 students that in and of itself was a smaller number than we currently have. So we're right now we're dealing smaller numbers because we lost some students who went to private school because we were in a pandemic last year. So I just, I get a little uncomfortable when we're making plans around a number that is already a little smaller and then we're shrinking down our square footage. There's just some things around that that make me a little uncomfortable and I just want to state that for some of the things I've been thinking. Yes, Alison, I want to jump in that when MSBA gave us this target there, they're saying that Crocker farms sixth grade is moving up also so they're looking at the overall elementary. So it wasn't trying to give us too little space for the number of children looking across all three schools. So that's where the 575 originally came from. So we're going to accommodate this K through five programs in Port River and Wildwood, right. This school and then looking across all, maybe Mike can explain it better but it's saying all of the children we have in any elementary school K through five. This school would have this much but some, there would be some real allocation Mike to Crocker farm. So they would be putting some kids in Crocker farm. Yep, I can jump in. I understand. Oh okay, then I'm good then I guess if there's more clarification clarification needed I'm happy to jump in but Kathy I think you did a really nice job explaining that. Alicia. Oh, no I was just going to say it's because of the redistricting. So like not all of the kids who currently go to Fort River and Wildwood will go to the new school some of them will be put in Crocker farm. Sean. I just wanted to, I've heard a lot of questions about the gym size can Donna do you know how large the current gyms are at Fort River and Wildwood I just wanted to know that number for comparison. Yeah, I believe they're about 3700 square feet. Okay. So, there have been a lot of discussion about the gym from an educational perspective, which is what what the focus is here is that a 4000 square foot gym would adequately provide the space needed for the 575 students. Mike I don't know if you want to expand on that. Yeah, sure. So I think I appreciate that and I think you know Donna has shared with me just some kind of initial thoughts about. I think about how much gym space a full class of kids needs like you know we average about 20 kids a class 19 kids a class it's not even 4000 so there may be a creative ways that the NISCO was thinking about how to subdivide gym space where you could still provide a small group small group of students which we do regularly to have an area for physical activity throughout the day where that's based on a movement break or other things, and still have sufficient space for 20 students or 23 students to be in a gym class so I know that's not all sorted out we'll do that after the submission but it made me feel more confident about the gym size, you know being able to accommodate the classes that part I wasn't worried about but also be able to accommodate some of the additional time that some of our students truly benefit from so I think the NISCO for being you know creative thinkers on that. So any other questions while we're on. I think this is probably our last table that we're when we're on space is that correct Donna. Yes. I'm not seeing any other. Okay, thank you. Alright, so, so basically. You know, everything kind of occurs simultaneously. So we have used the 105,750 square feet for a new school and we've taken the programs that have been identified based on those square footages and putting those into a renovation model. And what you'll see is that it isn't as efficient as far as the gross square footage, because it's a renovation addition so we've had to work around and, and in a meaningful and thoughtful way, utilize the existing building which increases the square footage just a little bit. And again these are very preliminary we haven't had the opportunity to really spend some time making sure that these are the most efficient ways to lay out the spaces. So, before again I just want to reiterate we're going to show you our options or concepts their concepts. We have taken both the educational program, applying it to both sites, and they're really test fits and I just want to make sure that everyone understands they're not final. There's a good chance that the final solution for all of these options right as as we establish them and look at them for the preferred schematic are going to look different.  These are for comparison purposes to determine if there are any alternatives that don't meet your educational program or not feasible on the site. So the, you know, you put something out there whether it's cost or design or layouts and people are going to respond which is great, but at the same time we want you to know these are just test fits and so these are to provide the cost estimator and for us to understand is it possible, and what an order of magnitude cost would be for each of the options. So we've been able to establish certain design parameters. We know the approximate gross square footage of the building for a new. We understand the program requirements for renovation addition. We understand the goals initiatives for net zero so that was important and, for example, as you look at this renovation addition, we wanted to make sure that we provided natural delight and all the classrooms and things like that. We understand the installation associated etc. And from the site perspective, we do know a lot of information about the sites. So that was really helpful and understanding if there are any differences in the sites as it relates to cost. We know that we need approximately 180 parking spaces. So those have been identified. Those two will also help and we'll be getting into this further about the PV canopies right so we'll be putting canopies and thinking about where we can maximize the canopies on the site to achieve net zero but recognizing that that will play a big part of that. We also understand the differences in the sites right we understand you can see Fort River here. There were lots of play fields we've replicated the play fields in kind, but we've done so in a thoughtful manner where they we understand them to be. They get wet. So what we've done and I'll let Tim go into it further is that we design this so that we've corrected or improve the site for use and and I know everyone's we're going to get quick to the numbers I know people have already looked at them but you'll see that those are fundamentally the differences in cost. I don't know if there was anything else I really wanted to say I'm going to just turn it over to Tim Tim or Rick feel free to jump in and expand. Yeah, I think we can just walk through the sites talk about the major aspects you've already spoken about the building how we've made a thoughtful first pass at what we would keep and what we would remove to make the existing building function better in the site and then in the addition accommodate all of the added program for the new school, but this is just one of one ways that we will test moving forward. And then there are the other aspects of the site that we have tested to make sure that we can accommodate what we need to do get the parking and vehicular circulation. There for separation of bus and parent drop off for safe arrival and dismissal from school, enough queuing to get cars on to the site. You talked about the play fields, which we are replacing in kind and bringing them up a little bit as an assumption in our estimate and adding a drainage layer which will mitigate some of the wetness on the site. We're accommodating stormwater in the areas outside of where we can build the building. And then we have elements that are required to address the towns that zero priorities. We show a geothermal field to the south of the building. You'll notice that it's below parking and also below play fields. So if we are, you know, four or five, six feet below ground in this option and within the other option, that space that is used for the field, it should be noted is usable space, just because it takes up a good portion of the site doesn't mean that that portion of the site can't be used for parking. And then we have parking area in addition to the roof area for the building, the new building and the renovation that can be used for photovoltaic the other aspect of creating energy that to reach the town's goals. I just want to say if anyone has any comments or questions on this as Tim goes through just raise your hand and I'll recognize you. I want to, sorry. And then we also have outlined an appropriate area for play structures and walking paths and outdoor learning on site. So, you know, this is not a design, but it is a pretty thorough test fit of all of the requirements of the site as we understand them, and getting a fit in a comfortable and appropriate way. Maybe next slide. So, here is the new building on the site shown with the existing building demolished the play fields have been relocated to the footprint of the existing building once it has been removed the same assumptions are made in terms of bringing the fields up and creating a drainage layer beneath them. The new building is also brought up slightly to mitigate the problem of groundwater. A similar number of parking spaces and site circulation is provided for the new building, the layout is different because the footprint is in a different place of the building you have to work around the existing building. And that parking lot though will sponsor future photo will take and as we'll move the building, the geothermal field for logistics is in a different place in this option. It's a little bit further from the building which works but you'll notice that it's still below parking and out of the way. All the other site features the outdoor learning spaces are accommodated around the perimeter of the built area. So, Tim, you said that you, I think you said you raised the building up a bit and you raise the fields up a bit. Is this to deal with water levels at Fort River is my question and then is it. Will it also deal with the water levels. I mean does this address concerns about water. The main reason for doing that is to address the high water table so what we would do is add a layer of field that would one bring the field and the building. Higher than the water as it exists and has it has been observed in the test base that we've done, and then that layer would be poor so hydrostatic pressure couldn't essentially seep up through the ground and get into the building or keep the fields way and then the fields themselves would have a drainage layer of perforated piping gravel that would keep them dry. And is that you need to do this on this site you also need to do it on Wildwood or should this specific to Fort River. This is specific to Fort River, due to the observed high ground water. Also, these fields don't exist on Wildwood so the softball field. We're calling them frisbee fills they're not really marked. They don't exist so that that work does not correct Wildwood that to be one caveat to that there is an alternative location for the geothermal field at Wildwood which is on the middle school soccer field. If we do geothermal at that alternative location, there would probably be some field improvements included which we have not counted for and the estimates at this point because it's an alternative. So, so just to quickly add to this I see lots of hands which is great. We just want to say what our goal was when we were doing these test fits was to replace in kind. So, the, the one aspect of the site that's not included in this and I just want to be clear is that we, there's a bathroom and a storage area on the existing Fort River site that we have not incorporated into this so we replaced and probably and absolutely have enhanced or improve the fields on the site we are not including the bathrooms and storage. And lighting to Oh, and lighting. Thank you. Then I see Phoebe then Jonathan then Alicia Phoebe. So, if I'm remembering correctly something we talked about before MSBA does not reimburse entirely for site work. Okay, so with that being said is there other funding that we could look for and that we should be talking about at some point to cover some of this site work, or is this all, you know, taxpayer money. So MSBA has caps on both the cost of the building and the cost of the site, and they recognize this is not in par or in line with current costs, but they cap it so that they have enough funds and treat every project or town equally that they can distribute their money further right they can reach more communities. So, we, I don't know if you have preservation funds that you could use or recreation that that would be a town discussion if there's a way to supplement some of these improvements their site improvements right the recreational recreational improvements like, you know, anything that we can do to enhance and support, you know, the recreational departments, recognizing this is, you know, really a town resource is always a goal but you would probably have to look at some other resources within the community. Jonathan. My comment was almost the same as Phoebe's. But what I was going to add to that was, I don't think we're going to see today, the level of detail we're at, as to the sort of the town's portion of the cost, or are we going to get to that today. We're going to see lots of numbers today but they're going to and they're going to talk about total project costs or building costs or site costs but I don't know that we're necessarily going to have an understanding yet of the magnitude of town born cost. Yeah, Jonathan let me respond so that isn't the focus of today's presentation. I, I'd like to get through Donna's presentation and then I, we can talk a little bit about how that's calculated and where it's likely to land. Sorry, Margaret. Margaret, can we also add when we get to that piece of when those conversations happen. I really want to understand this whole timeline. Yeah, absolutely. Alicia did you take your hand down was that your question also. The questions were answered the only one remaining is, is this the site work and the prep work is this the same that would need to happen for a two story building. The fields would be the same for a two story building there would be some difference between a two and a three story building and that the footprint is smaller for three story building. And raising the building up would be a little bit smaller for three story building so they're there, there will be some differences, but in general, you know, the elements of the scope are the same. But, you know, some some of the site becomes field rather than building what you change from a two to a three story building so there's a minor shift. I think last time or two times ago I can't remember you said that you weren't sure the soil, the composition of the soil at Fort River could handle a three story. We know we can put a three story building there it's a question of what we would have to do to make it happen and we do not yet know precisely but we have accounted for some soil improvements and bringing up the building that's why we added that to the site because it's a better estimate of what we will have to do whether whether or not the full extent of the soil prep that we have to do we do not yet know at this point. Okay, thank you. Phoebe's hand is up. Oh sorry Phoebe. No worries so since we're talking about the two versus three. In the numbers we're going to look at for the new options to those gear more towards two or three story buildings and are we still looking at both of those options. We are geared toward a three story building, but the option is, as it's going to be submitted to the MSBA a new building on a site. So, within that framework, there is flexibility to look at two or three stories, if it's deemed appropriate. So that decision. Yeah, yeah I was going to say so so all of that would be explored over the next three months. So that will hopefully help determine what your preferred solution is. Alicia. Sorry, I just have a follow up to that question. So the numbers we didn't look at either or is it just like a estimate of, like is it a average of the two looking at a two story three sort of where do the numbers come from done if we didn't choose one to look at specifically. And then right now. This is just for order of magnitude and and no one. The purpose really of this is not to pick which one to move forward it's to eliminate which ones we deem not appropriate educationally, or from a cost perspective. From what everything that we've heard that a renovation addition and new construction two story three story is all valid looking forward. So these really are applying the same cost parameters to it. So, as Tim said, you know is a two story versus a three story going to shift the cost, not not at this level. We need to get into it a little bit more. We need to understand where the building. At this point, we still don't even know the size of the gym, and even where the gym is going, and all of these decisions need to occur in the next few months to determine how a two story versus three story would evaluate against each other. And from a cost perspective, right now, we can safely say, and that a two story three stories going to be in this cost range. Okay, so we'll be eventually looking at both. Yeah, and Alicia, I think, I think that's a perfect example of how diagrammatic that this is, is that it's really trying to make comparisons between the base options, and the next phase will dive into that detail. And even at the next phase, it's, it's going to say, Okay, we like, you know, the renovation addition, but it's still not finalized. Again, it's just to pick a preferred solution. And then during schematic design, which will be the following six months, will we really get into the exact layouts of all the spaces, exactly where the parking is going to go where the front door is going to be, how the site features are going to influence the overall design and cost of the project. So, again, it's, it's sort of baby steps, it's, okay, you know, I need a new car, right. So, so you've established you need a new car your your car is not working so I either take it to the mechanic and get it fixed, or I need a new car. What are the. You can do that. And the answer is yes, okay, your car isn't working. So, so now we're at that phase to say okay. Now let's look at what my options are, and that's solely what this is it's from an educational, making sure that all of the alternatives we're putting forward, meet your educational goals, and if they don't, we no longer study them. We look at the 65 students school. And then we look at a renovation addition and new construction on both sites. And if those all are meet the educational criteria and they fit, it's really a test fit. We then will take those to us to refine those alternatives. It's so hard because we're putting numbers in front of you. And we're trying to tell you that we really haven't had an opportunity to fully design it so these are just order of magnitude. I think we can move to the next slide. So here is the renovation addition scheme on the Wildwood site. The same components are represented. You see reorganized traffic circulation to allow for safe drop off and separation of parent traffic buses and vans. The building is renovated in a similar way to allow light into the center of the building. Classrooms are preserved. There is an addition to story addition to write out the rest of the program. There is play structure similar to both of the options on the Fort River site shown with the smaller site, there are not the athletic fields that surround Fort River site so the students at this building have access to the campus below but they're not part of the project because they're not on site. The geothermal field is shown where it will fit on the site in this option. We have not looked at building into the hill which would be more appropriate with the new construction. But as we get to that. And then some of the other things that we're going to look at moving forward are possibly creating a second curb cut. Here's a new story on the Wildwood site. Three story building similar components, increased parking lot to accommodate the 170 plus cars that will be needed on site, longer drive lanes to accommodate more queuing of vehicles for the increased enrollment. The building is situated in such a location that it can be built with the existing school occupied and operating. As mentioned before there are two possible locations shown for the geothermal field one on the site proper and one on the middle school field, if that works with all of the stakeholders. If all the other options, the parking lot can sponsor PV, as well as the rooftop, but we should just reiterate that this is preliminary. As I mentioned, we haven't looked at moving the building further to the east, if that would be appropriate to open up the site, or possibly figure out which part of the program could be nestled into the hill. The building could even be north of the existing building if that worked for some reason. So we just haven't looked at that stuff. Yeah, so the only other things I'd like to add Tim is, we've had some preliminary discussions about the Hawthorne site. And so we're going to continue to explore that the Hawthorne site is to the left or west of the driveway coming into the early childhood center. That might be an opportunity for placement of wells, if that is desirable. The other thing, again, I think Tim mentioned at the Fort Riverside is, although you see lots of red dots here, those are underground and so this area would be available for play space or for other outdoor learning opportunities. Phoebe's hand is up, Mike. I think your hand was up. Did it go back down. I can, I saw Phoebe's up so I'll go after Phoebe. Okay, Phoebe. Hopefully a very brief question. I'm trying to get a sense of in it. I know this is just a very preliminary sort of diagram or whatever but how close would be in this scenario the new school be to the hill, down to the middle of the hill approximately. In this, it's about 30 feet away, but there are utilities right at the edge of the hill including a culvert, and all of the utilities that serve the existing school, and the middle school campus to the south so it could be a considerable amount of site work with this option, and the profile of the grades at the southern end of the site would most likely be altered, modified, changed in some way. If that's where your question was going. Yeah, so similar to what Phoebe asked. And I want to be respectful of your comments that this is not all worked out in terms of exactly where everything will be but just want to reiterate the point that I think I heard Donna say, as well as Tim. I don't know if there's a way in future diagrams it's important to show where the geothermal wells could be, but I also think it distracts my eye, maybe it's just me from the fact that these those could also from a kid level be where they play outdoor sports and so I don't know if there's a different way to do that. I'm not good at graphic design it's not a strength of mind but I was really concerned. And then I heard you say that and it and it made me less concerned about that so just just feedback that I don't know how to do that but I think the way it looks right now looks like there's very very little space green space for kids and if that's not the case. There's another way to show the geothermal piece but from a kid perspective if it's a field, they won't care, particularly that there's something underneath it that's supplying energy I mean they'll think it's probably wonderful about, you know, the net zero piece but I just think it's an important piece that could be confused in our community so it's no it's no critique it's more just if there are other ways to show that I think that might be more clear to the community on a regular use level for for a student perspective, how that would function. Thank you, and it well noted for our benefit we felt it was important, again just test fits that both sites can accommodate geothermal and kind of going back to Tim's comment about maybe putting the geothermal under parking lot. I don't know where that's possible but the challenge here is, we need the building in operation, before we can tear down the new building, so it's unlikely that we can put a geothermal well field under the parking lot because the parking lot comes after the buildings and use. In this instance, it doesn't necessarily work that we can put the fields under the parking, it could go maybe under the drive but I can't go where the existing building is I guess is what I'm trying to say. But it's doable. Yeah, this this site poses more challenges in terms of phasing that for ever just because I mean you can see that everything is a lot closer together and, you know, these drawings don't show time but if the construction schedule things can happen consecutively and eventually but if there's not enough room to move around, as Donna said, things have to have their own space. But again. So, for the purposes of the PDP. We believe that a renovation addition or new construction on either site or both sites are possible. Right. I know we're going to get into costs in a minute and that's fine we can have that conversation but again it's it's about test fits so if there was a site that had absolutely no room available to do a phased or to put a new school while the existing school is in operation, then perhaps you might eliminate that site. Right, but what we're saying from a test fit that both sites are worthy of continuing to evaluate over the next few months. And that's really the purpose of this. It's an exercise. All right, so now we'll get into the fun stuff right. So, I know some of you have already taken a look at this. This will be what we're getting into more information than what we would be sharing with MSBA at a certain level, but we just want to make sure that we have full transparency here. We have studied both again the 165 student option or alternative to satisfy MSBA's enrollment certification, and then what we can do is probably focus on the 575 student options. Again, as I mentioned, I'll say upfront that these options all are being evaluated based on CM construction manager at risk, which is also called chapter 149 a which is the public bidding requirements in the state. And I'm at risk is a construction manager that comes on to the project early, hopefully and during schematic design that they will assist with making sure that from a constructability perspective from a phasing and logistics perspective, that they'll work with us in concert to ensure that we've looked at everything, especially phasing during a complicated renovation and addition occupied building, right, that there is benefit to having them on board, especially when you're talking about a renovation and addition in an occupied building. So with that, recognizing that we would, we could support CM at risk for any of these options we just wanted to make sure everyone saw this from a comparative perspective. So we've gone through I don't I don't want to get into too much detail but the, thankfully, your buildings are identical right so we can assume the same parameters as it relates to the addition, the addition renovation and new construction. And so what you'll see if it's okay with everyone unless anyone has questions on the 165 student will focus on the 575 and what's different. So you have the addition, which, again, for the renovation addition you'll see it's slightly larger there's a little less efficiency in the layout of the building. Again, not fully vetted. It's just a test fit, but we believe that 108,000 compared to 105,000 based on our preliminary review is is a good, good starting point. So there's the cost for an addition. Again, the renovation, it would be a similar layout. We haven't really again looked at the nuances of the sites but for comparative purposes we can say they're the same. And then the new construction is identified from 40,000 40 million that would be nice 40,000 40 million compared to 39 million. So there's about a $700,000 difference in the construction. So the demolition is for the most part right right in line right same same building types has Matt. There's a little more VCT that would need to be removed. I believe it's the VCT Tim or Rick correct me at the Wildwood site so you'll see there's a slightly more cost there is that what that was for. Yeah. And sealings. Okay, Donna just for those who aren't familiar with the hazmat team so term so that's typically asbestos containing materials that were used typically in buildings of this era. They're managed and sort of protected from the students and the students from them right now but what prior to demolishing a building that has them you have to remove them so that the demolition materials can go into a clean landfill site. Right here. So used to our own acronyms here, and then, and then, and then of course we broke out the site right and, and we've started talking about the nuances of each of the sites and you'll see that the additional site work at Fort River the cost of the site work at Fort River really is related to the fields that don't exist at Wildwood, and just bringing everything up just a little bit due to the high groundwater. Paul. If so, I mean, looking at this, if it can you do a comparison between or your analysis of reno ad versus new construction it looks like reno ad you get more space for less money on both projects. So why would you recommend. I'm not sure if you're not recommending either but why would anyone recommend the new construction over reno ad is, can you just give us like three bullets on what what we would consider in that situation. Well, actually, those were just direct costs. So, I think let me just the so so this is the cost of the work right this is buying the materials and doing the construction and then what what is below that is what is called markups. And those are on the long Excel spreadsheet that we shared with everyone we just rolled it up here is the these are the added costs associated for we have a design contingency. And there because we haven't even started design, but it's also the markups as it relates to the construction manager and its profit general conditions general requirements. And then I'll tie to the duration of construction. So what you'll see is in the markups for the renovation addition options, those are higher than new construction because the duration of construction is longer. So we have more on site requirements for a longer period of time and and that sort of outlined a little bit better in the long Excel spreadsheet that we shared. So, to finish the conversation to respond to your question Paul what you'll see is a renovation addition is about two million, two million less for a renovation addition versus new construction, the number changes slightly from direct costs to total construction costs because some of those nuances. Donna, does this take into account that it would be a longer time period so this wouldn't be with no you wouldn't be open. You wouldn't be opening in 2026 with that run away. Correct. That's right. We have a phase occupied. I don't have this bridge I should have spread sheet in front of me we were assuming Tim helped me 30 months for renovation addition, which I would say is conservative for for the increased duration right so let me let me just say, it's, it could easily be longer, depending on the season in which you were doing that work and the sequence so Alicia. Do these numbers include the cost of having the schools be net zero and also for the renovation and addition with the just the new portion of the building the net zero ready or with the new. Okay, with the old portion also be net zero ready. So, is that included in these numbers here. Thank you so these numbers provide for what we would say a net zero ready building. So, recognizing what the UI target is for for the school in order to achieve net zero. That would be the installation. You know your wall thickness your insulation, your window to wall ratio to make sure that it's, it doesn't provide. The most insulated building so it's your window to wall ratio your insulation, trying to achieve the UI that you're requiring we're using a chilled beam system. And again that will get fully vetted as we go further, but so yes these are net zero ready. So that's comparisons right and then and then the next page Alicia what you'll see is what what the cost is for PV and what the cost is for the actual geothermal. Okay, as for renovation addition versus new construction tamarick and jump in but bottom line is it would actually we couldn't we can't even think about treating the addition differently than what we would treat new renovation portion of the building right you still want to provide the same amount of insulation you still want to provide your, your window to wall ratio you still so they're really aren't you want the same mechanical system right like you're not going to have one. So go ahead Tim. If we were to renovate the entire mechanical system of the building would be replaced and it would be one system throughout the new and renovated construction of the building so the building would perform to the same level throughout. And we close targets yeah so I guess I guess I know the bylaws says that a renovation that a net zero is only needs to you only need to achieve that on the new construction right not not on the renovated space but and inherently would make things more complicated and less efficient if you treat it a renovation differently than you would treat the addition it it makes the most sense to do everything all with the same system all with the same building parameters. So, there's no difference as far as performance and a renovation addition or new construction. I don't see any other hands up Kathy. Yeah, and Donna as you get to what you're adding to make it net zero just so people understand it's not that we're talking about just a net zero ready building. It's building the building really tight for energy, so that when we're adding photo voltaic and the systems, we don't have to have photovoltaic up and down every road and air merge so we can offset the energy use. So it's the building is being built in the net zero subcommittee. There's a very nice diagram that I should just share with everyone that that's a first step of a super energy efficient building. And then you're offsetting the electrical use with the photovoltaics so that it's generating as much energy like it's generating the offset. So Phoebe. I wasn't specific to this this sort of steps back for a minute. Do we have the ability or did we already get the information that was shared with. I'm forgetting the name of the people that came up with these numbers. Do we have the ability to see that information. What was provided to them to come up with this. Yeah, we have not. No, we have not shared it with you all were happy, happy to do it. You know, typically and Margaret can jump in to again. We had to obviously make certain assumptions and I think that's what you're asking Phoebe with all of the information that we know and we're absolutely happy to share that with you. I think it would be helpful because what I'm trying to sort of pinpoint is, you know, let's take the site work for instance, it's not an apples to apples comparison right because there's just more work at Fort River. So it's harder for me to look at these numbers and go wow there's a $2 million difference between Fort River and Wildwood but because they're not apples to apples. It's not, it, it's hard to look at the numbers that way as well. And so I want to see where those difference and assumptions are so that we can then use that as we're also looking at where these numbers are coming from I think that would be a helpful information to be able to look at. So, so Tim, do you mind taking this down for just a second. I'm just going to quickly pull up we'll share this document. But Dinesco actually shared their document last night that was provided to the cost estimators and I have it open on my screen so I'm showing this not because I'm expecting you to digest what's here. But at this moment, it's again to reiterate the fact that this is a very conceptual level. And what this does is it sort of walks through here's the different options across the top, and it walks through the kind of base assumption so we can share that but you can see that is the information that the estimators got, plus the diagrams of the site design so it's a very conceptual level of estimating. I will. Margaret will send that out to everyone right after this meeting and we'll post it in the packet as well as what went on. Okay, yeah, and I also just want to say you know the reason that Donna shared it last night was that we were having a discussion about what we might reasonably anticipate and we thought this question would come up so we'll get it out to everybody okay. And again it's, it's for comparative purposes. But again like Margaret said, we had a, I hate to even use the word basis of design establishing the scope, which will be helpful for you all to understand but it's also the site diagrams and what you're going to see. And it's more having conversations with our cost estimator saying okay well you can't see that we're raising the building up foot and that we want the drainage in there so it's also conversations with our cost estimator making sure that everything that we know he knows about the differences in the sites and the nuances. I think he also had the hazmat reports the house of the Hera reports which identify where the, you know, yeah, yeah he had surveys reports from previous projects he actually had quite a bit of information on the sites which normally at this phase, you wouldn't have just because you've been through this process before. I don't see any other hands, I think we can go to the net zero, the net zero side of things. So, once we've established the cost for construction for a net zero ready building. And then took it a step further. Right. And we said okay. So what are the costs supplemental costs to achieve the town's initiatives. So, from a photovoltaic or PV array system, this would, again, this is high level, we don't even have an energy model finalize so again, based on the square footage and understanding the systems. You know we think we have a really good estimate on the energy usage of the building. So what we've done is working with our solar design team established the parameters associated with how many PV would be required we can share that with you as well. And based on right the energy usage that we assume would be used in the building. Again, this is all for comparative purposes and order of magnitude, we're working on life cycle cost analysis we're looking we're working on our energy model now that we have rough square footage of the building and and we will be refining these from once we submit PDP we can really start getting into understanding, hopefully a little better and fine tuning these numbers when we come when for the next steps for the next few months but the PVs include the full system, it includes the full design and construction of the canopies and the parking lots and the PVs on the roof, both buildings I want to just go back to being net zero ready, the structure of the building is designed so that it can support PVs, and we always allow for conduit running down so that it can tie into a panel in the building, etc. So the building, the costs within the building do support these initiatives. The geothermal gets a little more tricky, as it relates to cost at this level, and we again made certain assumptions we understand the sites. We have the information from our geotech perspective so working with our geothermal folks again making decisions on the energy usage. We believe that the geothermal costs, you know, based on 80 to 100 wells. Based on 100 plus or minus wells at this point that's our best guess is somewhere around 3.8 million and that that would be the same whether it's a renovation or new construction and regardless of which site. That's the housing I see Jonathan's hand at Jonathan. I just wanted to note on the geothermal, I'm a little. I'm not sure that that that line should really be carried here when it comes to the way that the bylaw is kind of crafted. Because there are multiple ways as we've talked in the subcommittee to get to net zero ready, some of which, while geothermal is the most efficient route could be could do it without that. So I'm, I think it'd be better for the, this is really part of the heating system and cooling system for that to be in the construction cost above. Because one way or another we're going to have to keep heat and cool the building, regardless of whether we can afford to do it by way of a geothermal system. Yeah, you're right Jonathan and and then obviously we always say does it go into site or does it go into building and that's that's the million dollar question as well. I think what we're showing is if. And we still have not fully vetted the lifecycle cost analysis to show you how this the geothermal costs may impact your operating costs right there's probably a cost savings there like there's a lot of other thought that needs to go through this. The reason why we pulled it out was because if the town decides that it doesn't financially work for utilizing geothermal. We have all the other attributes within the building design to be an all electric building. We still haven't fully vetted it all out that's the conversation for our next net zero meeting. So we just wanted to recognize those independent of the actual building because that would be an added cost. I don't know if if that was the route chosen for to achieve that zero and I understand that that makes sense. I guess my worry is that, unless this is just the balance. The town were to decide, and this is maybe way too much detail for this, this level that we're looking at but should the town decide that geothermal is too costly approach to to pursue. There would have to be some additional costs to the systems that are already kind of assumed in the pricing up above in the construction costs. I simply subtract this number and get your, your total cost your mechanical systems would have to go up by some other smaller number, presumably. Well, actually, we really want to get into the weeds too much either Jonathan but what what we're carrying for mechanical system in the building is a chill bean for pipe system. Which is the most efficient quietest system and and we've started the conversations with Rupert and his team on mechanical systems within a building but the chill beam is probably at the high end of mechanical system so if we went to an all electric VRF system, there might be even some savings associated with that. Yeah, and Jonathan I just want to add I think part of the reason this is here is that the again this was a question that we anticipated people would ask so Dinesco took a crack at estimating it, you know based on the cost of comparable mechanical systems. I also think, and this is also not for discussion today there may be some ways of financing this relative to savings operational savings, and so it's helpful to look at it as a sort of standalone item even if you completely agreed. It would have to be fully integrated into the design for you really to understand it so this is sort of help just trying to help people understand what the pieces are, because they will be subject to much mother, much further development in the next stage. Again, Jonathan as working with the net zero group, what will be important as we start looking at the ways that we can achieve the most efficient building right to reduce the EUI and then what the cost associated with getting to that or, or there's going to be a balance of the RF system isn't as efficient as utilizing geothermal what's the impact in the increased PB requirements. So, we've talked about perhaps not providing it the geo all of the geothermal needed for the building right we want to go through that exercise maybe do it for the normal standard use and then how can we augment that or supplement that with the means to reduce the cost of geothermal. So, I think there's a whole lot more work to do. I guess this is what we keep saying right that this, this is just a test fit. If there's anything in these numbers, if it doesn't, you know, basically, it may see educational program, and the four options that are still on the table are within relative cost of each other, that we should continue to study all four options. And that's going to be in the next few months. No, no one is saying you need to pick an option today. If you think that you want to pick an option today. Let us know. We can have a we can have it to you, you know, right that way, but that's not food, and that and that's not being responsible so all we're saying is, you know, from a comparative purpose, although the numbers are great. We're just computing that we'll get to the next page in a minute that these are all possible, and that we should continue to fine tune and explore all four options over the next few months. Alicia. I have a couple of things. One, so it would be helpful if we could have a breakdown sheet similar to the one that you all just displayed also for this portion, just because it's kind of hard to make to make any sense of the numbers without the context behind them. And like what exactly you all were looking at and considering in coming up with these numbers. And so I feel like that's some information that I would need for almost every single line like what did you look at to come up with this number. How did we get here. So that's some information that's missing for me and then context in terms of what we're looking at for geothermal specifically is what I would like to know. And then wondering in terms of the site prep because I know MSBA reimburses a certain percentage of the site prep is that like, not including the site prep for geothermal is that on our dime also or can that be included in the percentage reimbursed by the MSBA and sorry one more. So in the beginning of this process or in the beginning of when I started this process with you all, we were looking at a list of priorities that sort of like blue grid. And so I'm wondering how and when we will use that to apply to this process. And that came up for me sort of during Jonathan's comment about thinking that the geothermal and those things should be included in the constructions are having it be zero ready because that's, I mean, a non negotiable because it doesn't follow our laws so that's a priority that we want this school to be zero ready then should we design the way that we're looking at and evaluating it in conjunction with our priorities. Yeah, so Alicia let me. So to the first one, I want to get through Dennis goes presentation of the numbers and then I'm going to say a few words about the reimbursement and and answer that question. Donna do you want to respond to her other questions. Sure. I, as far as all the detail and backup. Again, happy to share it with you. I think the geothermal is broken out. And, and it states it on that spreadsheet. I thought it did it gives you the direct costs and then all of the markups associated with it. The PVs is a turnkey number, and we can share with you what we were provided, not, not, not a problem. And, you know, again, everyone can go through this and and get into the, I guess the question is, to understand the parameters in which we have come up with the numbers are people wondering why is it costs so much are you sure you didn't miss something the question we're happy to share everything with you. But again, this is a test fit without a design without even knowing what the energy use is for the building, we had to make all kinds of assumptions. So we'll share everything we have and what we've presented and how we arrived at these costs but I want everyone to understand that these are extremely preliminary numbers, and that you can pour through them and you're going to maybe ask questions maybe not ask questions you just want to make sure that the numbers make sense. But what's important to understand is this is just for comparative purposes. We didn't come up until what was it the 22nd last Tuesday, we didn't even know what square footage was of the building but yet we had to start our cost estimating process right so we're happy to share these but more importantly, if we all agree to move forward with the four options or alternatives will be able to define tune these numbers and provide more real more approach my shouldn't say realistic or appropriate but the numbers will reflect more information that we'll know we'll know what the EU I would be of the building we know, you know, a better idea of how much how many geothermal people are going to need will know far more information. Once we move past PDP to provide you with hopefully a more accurate cost for the project. These are for comparative purposes only. And then going to your criteria question we agree. It's at this point, the only thing on the criteria right would be eliminate 165 students because it doesn't meet your educational goals or criteria, but we'll be with all of this information that we need to work with you on over the next few months will we be evaluating each option against that criteria sheet. So that will occur, you know, in June, as we're determining what's the best solution to move forward. And the whole purpose of the PDP is to say, here are the viable options that we want to continue to explore that that's all this is remove which ones don't work educationally or site or anything. And then, now we want to continue to further explore these options. So I think that the other pieces that's going on that you've heard bits and pieces of is just sort of didn't go familiarizing themselves with the sites and the buildings and sort of providing the documentation. I've heard before that a lot of the PDP is what I call due diligence that sort of providing the basis of design right so this is the first piece that sort of points forward to what the process is going to look like in the next stage. Alicia. Thank you. Thank you. So I just wanted to say that thank you both. But just to remember that there are some of us including myself that have never been through this process before. And you all are asking us to make very important decisions for our community. And so I know that this is we're not anywhere close to the end process but I need all of the information that I can possibly have throughout the entire process, or else I don't feel confident that I'm making the best decision. So that's the reason for all of the questions not that I'm doubting the numbers are that I think they're too high but I want to understand where these things are coming from. These are great questions, these are the questions that, you know, are are you're absolutely doing your, your job here as a representative of the building committee, these, this is the kind of discussion we want to have. I think what we're saying is, again, we're happy to share everything with you. But there's not. This is so preliminary that you need to take a lot of what we're doing with, you know, a grain of salt and I don't say that callously or anything but we don't even know where the entrance is going to be at the building. We don't even know if it's going to be 105,750 square feet right now right. We don't know what the energy usage is of the building we're running that model which will impact how many pvs and how much geothermal you're going to need. What we're saying is happy to share it all with you, but it's going to change between now and at PSR. And so, if maybe it'll help you catch up to understand the background of it, and then, and then as we actually get into the work that you'll be a quicker study. Yeah, and the only decision that is being made here in the PDP is whether these are the four options that are going to be investigated on the next stage. That is it. I mean, like in June, we'll be making an important decision and I don't want to wait until June to say I need more information. I have information now so that I can prepare myself and I think part of the learning curve is the process. So knowing what things are changing from what we're looking at right now to what we'll be looking at next month I won't know if I don't have them now and next month. So just that, but I appreciate. Thank you that response from both of you. So I'm going to call on myself because I can't figure out another way to do this but you know in terms in terms of the criteria and priority list my understanding. So what I asked the same question is that as we get the kind of information you're asking for everyone, we're going to be making some decisions. And even on, you know, and I'm thinking with the net zero subcommittee we might want to have everyone come where we can and if we didn't do geothermal but we did VRF tell us what that impact is because I think we have to make that decision before we get to preferred because it has so much to do with what's inside the building as well as site work. So we need to have enough information on this life cycle analysis and we don't have any of that now but trying to figure out when we can get that kind of choose this versus that because they can't hold on through past preferred with you could go this way because we're going to have to make a decision so that's forthcoming and then then we'll be able to say at this point, we don't have anything to say one side is better than the other side, or one way of doing this is better we just have a few cost really have enough about those cost numbers. So we have a lot of work to do after we get this document out. And that was just my realizing that we can't fill out any of those, you know, green versus red versus about the same. Yeah, exactly. We don't have enough information. Again, again, this is the PDP is to inform MSBA, which alternatives don't don't work again, pretty much 165 students, and that the four remaining from a test fit perspective work. So we're going to continue to explore those. And then we'll have more of the information that everyone is rightfully asking for today will actually be able to have a more informed responses to you all. So the fact that this, this, these numbers are coming at the end of the PDP is because all that other work had to be done first. When we pick up after the submission of the PDP this is where we're starting. It's not going to like we're going to get to the end of PSR and say here's a whole bunch of numbers. This is like the starting point that will be the basis of discussion from here on. Yeah, and these are thoughtful and you'll see the backup that we'll share with you. Everything that we have provided to our cost estimator have been very thoughtful. Right, we know what your net zero goals are we know how we need to achieve those so we've provided the appropriate thermal insulation of the building we understand the sites I think I think out of anything. We have a good understanding of the sites and how we're going to handle storm water and what's going to be required so so you know we're the learning curve for all of that is well underway and understood. What's going to occur next is going to be how are we going to achieve net zero we're going to look at the options, understanding what the energy usage is, and then, you know, really start looking at options of renovation addition and new construction and how that might relate to the sites, the restoration of construction, and an ultimate location on the site, and then you can compare them, meaningfully, going forward. This is just to say yes, it could work. Now, now, now we can actually refine them. Can I just go to the slide if that's okay. Yes, please do and I'm conscious of time. So, so, as I was saying, you know the original cost estimates were all based on CM construction manager at risk, chapter 149 a it's the state requirement for construction with file sub bids etc. And this option is going with a hard bid construction method it's called design bid build. And what we do is we design the building. We put it out to bid, and then a contractor hard bids the number provides a number a cost, and then they go build the builder. I'm just saying that both, I'm sure answer and denisco, we have done both 140, CM and hard bid or general construction or dbb, both of them, equally, and equally successfully. What I'm saying in the instance of your project is that you have a very complicated renovation addition phased, and it will be occupied. So having a construction manager on board early throughout the process, really is a huge benefit to making sure that from a safety logistics phasing makes the most sense. So if we go with a new construction, we don't need to make that decision now. If we go with a new construction, even though the existing school will be occupied on the same site. We are confident that a dbb would design bid bid general contractor method of construction is worth the consideration. What we see is that there is some cost savings associated with going with a design bid build, rather than a CM, and there are inherent benefits of both. So we don't need to debate that today or have that conversation today we can certainly, I guess Margaret, that's the conversation. It's a signal that this is going to be a topic for consideration, just like all of these the pieces on the sheet so it's a, it's not a decision to be made now but I think it's, it's important point to raise that there are two different methods in the public sector of delivering the project. And so, you know there's some some cost savings as it relates to the delivery method or construction method. Compared to each but we didn't want to use this from a full comparison perspective because we do not recommend going this delivery method if it's going to be a phased occupied renovation edition project. Questions comments. I'm not seeing any hands on. So, Donna. Yeah, no, thank you. So, Donna, so you've got this last piece so when you come back to us next week, and I just want to remind we are just talking about meeting again, unless the school committee changes on space. So the numbers we're going to be seeing is that correct. Correct. Okay. And, yeah, and what we'll do is we'll share today with everyone, all of the backup supporting it. But again, it's, it's to help inform you all how we arrived at these numbers. You know where we don't have enough information to modify the numbers right now, but we're certainly happy to answer any questions people have but yes, our intent is to share these numbers perhaps with the range because we do have two different delivery methods of construction for new we can talk about how we're going to do that. Well, and I think what would be helpful for the, for the dinasco team is if you get this material and you have questions, send send us an email, but put it in an email what the question is so that when we come to the meeting on the 11th we can either have already answered the question and can summarize on the 11th or the dinasco team can respond in that meeting. Okay, don't wait until next Friday to say hi I have a question about this because basically what we want to do next Friday is to answer any questions you have, and then we will need to take a vote. The committee has to is required to take a vote to authorize the submission of the document. Maybe, and then pull. Sorry, I always seem to raise my hand at the end of once we are switching but I want to go back for a second and and ask. In terms of the construction piece I know this is moving ahead a little bit but you were just talking about it with the two different options for the design build build the build and the other one. What happens with project like cost overruns that kind of stuff. So, I'll, I'll speak to that. So, the, the line item that the dinasco team has in their budget for markups. It's not, there's a lot in there but don't mention one of the items is contingencies. They're built into these projects whether you go design bid build, or you go see I'm at risk are contingencies that protect the owner by providing a cushion. And you want when you take the project to when you confirm the cost of the project with the MSBA when you take it to the local vote. That's really important because you want to be able to say to people confidently. Stuff happens right we have anticipated all reasonable. You know possibilities and certainly coming off the last couple years one of the things that's built into this number is a lot of escalation, because there's been a lot of escalation, but there's a contingency number in the overall budget which in is estimated is built into that markup line that is the protection against change orders or other things that sort of you know unforeseen conditions the kinds of things that happen in the course of construction. And they haven't broken it out here but you know there's a sort of built in sort of assumptions that their estimators have used about what those numbers would be. I think I think it is built in to the spreadsheet. No that's what I was saying it's in it's some of it there's some contingencies in your construction number, and there are some contingencies in your markup number. That's exactly what I'm saying. Yeah yeah I'm just saying it's it's a it's not identified in the presentation but it's identified on on that long spreadsheet there's more detail on the spreadsheet. Yeah. Paul. So it's an important piece for us to consider at least from my perspective is about costs and so that's where my orientation is going to be so these numbers are pretty important to see so that's that's very useful. And along those lines I think in terms of keeping our costs down in terms of our designer and OPM and, and, you know, being efficient with their time that when people have questions that they should be funneled through the chair. We have questions that they go to the chair the chair assembles them organize it so we're not, you know, every time, you know, Margaret and Donna don't work for free so when we're interacting with them. So we want to be efficient with our interactions with them so and I really appreciate the work and the detail you're giving today, which is really good. It's very helpful for me and for the other members of the committee I think. Yeah. And, and, you know, I was going to echo what Paul just said if you send the questions directly to me. And you, I will wait a few days and collect them as you're looking at the detail, and then assemble them so that they're not getting the same question twice from more than one person, or, or, or I will send them through and then when I realize the second set of questions was the same. And that'll also help us keep a record of what questions were asked. Right. So, I just want to say we're at 1012. And I want to respond to the question about the reimbursement a little bit and sort of share some information about that. And I'm sure we have public comment. Donna, do you want to just talk a little bit about the schedule and then we'll, I'll sort of ask you to take the stand and I have something I want to put up. Yeah, sure, sure. So, so, you know, again, as we've been saying, we don't have final program yet or building size but but we think we're close and we will be going before school committee next week. And then if there's any adjustments to the square footage we can make that and then present the final, you know, outline of the PDP as Margaret identified at the beginning, very similar to what we've shared with you today, as far as what the building committee needs to vote on to allow us to submit the PDP to the MSBA on March 15. And once that's done, we really just want to take the information we've learned, put it in our pocket, and then really start working on and focusing on the four were assuming for alternatives that remain to be considered further. We have work to do on the net zero component we have work to do on some some locations of the buildings, etc. So there is some work that will continue that will help inform the cost as we move forward. And then in June, we're going to provide you with the evaluation of the four options were assuming there's going to be four left on the table after next Friday. But the town needs to pick one, and that that's the preferred solution. And you're going to pick one, one option to take to MSBA to say yep, this is our final option. And now we really want to study this one so it's, you know, baby steps to really fine tuning the best, most informed decisions and attributes of the project which will inform your overall cost of the project. And MSBA we submit in the end of June, and MSBA board will vote on August 31 to accept your preferred solution our preferred solution to move forward into cinematic design. Thank you for. Thank you. Any questions before we toggle to the little bit about the MSBA. Okay, so I'm going to share a document that is on the MSBA website and I'm actually going to put the link to this in the chat. I encourage those listening to not all go to the MSBA website all at the same time to look at this and crash their website. But this is a really useful set of data that the MSBA keeps online that explains how construction costs are changing over time. In context you can see down at the bottom the data, pretty much, much starts in 2009, and every little dot little bubble here is a project. I think this is where was the previous Amherst project was right in here somewhere. At any rate, the green line here represents what MSBA will reimburse on and you can see it's sort of gone up gently over time, but I think you can also see if this is the cost of projects that these dots are representing that the cost of construction is escalating faster than the reimbursement rate is going up. So I think when you did the previous project, I think the construction rate, let me just see if I've got the right chart here. The construction rate I believe was 326. I think, yes, in fact, there's Amherst. Okay, so here's the previous project. And it has an X through it, because it failed. The previous vote failed and you can see you were not the only ones right all the X's are, it does happen right. So this is where you were before so it was the cost per square foot was $442 a square foot. The MSBA was reimbursing on was $326. So, I mean, basically at that point 25% of the project was outside of reimbursement. Right. So now, this has happened this kind of escalate, you know, very significant escalation and cost so you can see these are the most recent projects. The current reimbursement rate is $360 a square foot. This project, you know, based on the information that the Dinesco team presented it today is coming in around 690, 692 perhaps. So it was 442. It was at that point 25% of it was outside of reimbursement. Now at 692. So, less than half of it is covered is within reimbursement. So, Alicia, this is a sort of super short way of saying to you, the whole issue about the geotech and the PV is 100% outside of reimbursement right because as you saw in the way Dinesco presented this, that was below the line. The town may be able to find other ways of paying for that but it won't be through the MSBA. And it's because of the cap. It's not because of there's anything wrong with this design or the approach. It's just that this is the way they're approaching this and we could have a whole separate discussion about whether this is, you know, what they should be doing or not but I, you know, this is their job is to implement the legislation that was passed that enabled this funding program. So, the way I would think about it is that now, whatever the cost per square foot is and you know you can see if we're at these projects, the cost of them is escalated to the midpoint of construction Donna that's the way that your estimator is doing it which is pretty typical. Right because not everything gets bought out until approximately the midpoint of construction. You're sort of off the chart in terms of what's been approved but already there are projects here that are sort of in that that neighborhood. Right. And so you're a little bit further out than this in terms of when this will get voted on these dots represent when the MSBA approves the project costs which for us will be in the spring probably April, February, probably March or April, might be February so. And anyway, it goes through SD, right. So, yes, so early, early, December, January, right, right. So, you know, I think that's a way of saying, you know, unfortunately, and I don't think this could have been predicted back when you had your previous project, you know, we were seeing as an annual escalation in the realm of three to 4%.   I was going to say to add to that. And what we didn't fully acknowledge during our costing sheet is as it relates to escalation. We were carrying. I think it was ripped him correct me if I'm wrong. 11, a total of 11 so it does step down. The expectation is that this year is 6%, right. 632 or something like that. 633 and then to because we'll be going on for five or 542 so five per year so five 5% increase escalation for 2022. I think it was three and then to or something or five, four to we can give you the breakdown but the expectation is that the escalation will stable stabilize it's not it's not going to the cost of construction hopefully you know we know can't continue at this rate. So we have some global issues that we're dealing with that may affect some things short term, hopefully not long term. But we can share we're carrying 11% escalation with the project going out in June of 24. Yeah, I just I just wanted to respond again a little bit more about the, you know who pays for the PV and for the geothermal. Again, once we have it all baked into the number. It's really not going to matter as Margaret said so if we took 3.8 million and put it in construction, or put it in site. It's not, it's not going to matter. I guess what we were trying to say. I think the reason to look at the geotech and the. Sorry, the geothermal and the PV is is is to. So one is climate change. Right. The second is the operational savings to the district as a result of having these this highly, highly efficient way of delivering heating and cooling to the building. And that is going to be studied in the life cycle cost analysis process. Okay. So, does anybody have any questions about this before I take this down. I'll put the link in the chat. I'll just hand it up. Okay, and we don't have a chat. Margaret so you're just going to have to have to email it to you can you can find it by Googling MSBA construction cost data. Okay, and they and it produces this kind of pretty fabulous set of data. So Margaret, what is the potential that the cap could be raised. And is there still a window of opportunity where the cap could be raised where it affects this project. Yeah, and then the second question is just related to that is, is that something that if there is still an opportunity to raise that cap is it something that our local legislators can help with if we lobby with them to lobby with the MSBA. It seems like it's so far out of whack now, you know, it's been growing but yeah, the last few years it's been growing at an even greater rate is there. I guess it's a room for us to try to improve this situation a little better through advocacy. So, the answer to the first question is yes, it is possible they will raise it. The common I will make is that during this period of extreme volatility you can see that they did not raise it. So with, if I had a crystal ball which I don't. I would say if, if costs are not, or if, if, if the estimating world is looking at this and saying costs are going to level out now, I would be surprised to see them raise it in a significant way. I would say about politics, I would say the MSBA and, and I say this in admiration. They seem to be pretty impervious to political influence. I mean there is a larger question about whether the MSBA is program should be funded more deeply. But these numbers do not continue to get farther apart, but I would not expect a political solution to be an appropriate approach to this reality and the question these are the questions that every community has when they come to this moment. Yeah, if I could just add to Margaret's comments you can see the last time they did raise and they've changed some of the reimbursement as relates to this a year ago, or July of 21. So I think right was that July 21 right they just increased it to $360 a square foot and again MSBA acknowledges and recognizes that they that the cost of construction exceeds what they're able to participate in so they're not disagreeing with the numbers, they acknowledge the numbers but their focus right now is to spread the money to and help as many communities as possible. They have one cent, right, they get one penny for on the sales tax so what their goal is, instead of giving it all, let's just say to a high school project that will cost significantly more than an elementary they're just saying, here's our cap we know it's not going to support or pay for the project in its entirety, but it's it's something and that we can spread our wealth amongst more communities. I don't know I guess going back to where the likelihood of them increasing their reimbursement rate, or that amount. Before we go to project scope and budget. They did it in July of 21. They will be going before them, and they will be voting and we'll say January, February, January, February of 23. So, what's the likelihood of them increasing their what they'll participate in is we have a year to bet that right. So we enter our project scope and budget agreement. If they increase the rate after that that's where one that once they once the MSBA votes to approve your schematic design if that if it hasn't changed, it won't impact you. So with that. I'm going to take, I'm going to take this down. Massive MSBA construction costs. So I'm going to go over that and it's, it's really interesting data but it's, it's not great news because overall it means that the percentage of reimbursement will be less because the delta between the cap and the construction costs has grown. So I want to see whether there were any other questions or comments. I'm conscious of that we're approaching the two hour meeting. I don't see any hands up. So I want to just mention a couple of things. We did post Dennis go sent us the traffic study we didn't get to it, but that it's an interesting document so I encourage everyone to read it on because there is a difference between the two sites. You can see even we're planning. And so if we have time we can talk about that next time but that's part of what's going to be submitted. And then I had one member of the committee asked me whether we wanted to put review of the minutes on our agendas, and I just would like to get feedback, not now we are posting them I sent out the draft minutes this time. We've posted them as draft. I'd be happy to put them on we took a vote a year ago, where not putting them on the agenda to save time with the chair we just approve them and post them. But if people would like to do that so I can put that on the agenda next time if people want to do it. So I just wanted to acknowledge that request to do it and those are draft minutes that were sent to you and any comments we will, we will update them before we make them final. So I'm not seeing any other we don't have any invoices so I'm going to open it for public comments if that's all right with everyone. I think. So we are if anyone in our public wants to be recognized so I think I know how to do this so we have four people right now. Let's see. Let me just from. What do I do, Paul to bring them in. Do I just recognize I can bring them in. If you just do the technical you do the recognition. Okay, so I thought Russ was first but anyway, Tony Cunningham seems to be the first name Tony Cunningham. I have a lot of thoughts I'm having difficulty organizing them and fitting them in three minutes so I'll do my best. Donna said jokingly she'd love if you picked an option today based on everything that's been shown so far a new two story building on the Fort Rivers site with 100% geothermal HVAC system seems to be the logical choice. Personally I would reduce the square footage by about 5000 square feet and limit the site work to get this project closer to the $80 million budget. Thank you to Phoebe for asking questions about why the site costs for Fort River are so much more than Wildwood and to Alicia for asking for the pricing narrative that was provided to the cost estimator. It's really not transparent or acceptable that some people on this committee receive information while others and the public do not. The cost comparison is not apples to apples as Phoebe said, you've assumed a larger building for Adreno which makes that option look more expensive and you've defined the Fort River site scope as far larger, including fields which I would argue should not be in scope for this project. At the very least the cost of developing those fields should be a separate line item at the bottom and the town can look at other ways to address those. I would agree with Jonathan that geothermal should be built into the construction cost and not separated out and the use of the term turnkey for for PV worries me as it seems to indicate you're planning to leave it out of this project and instead be handled as a separate project, maybe if the town can get a grant or other funding down the road from everything you found so far it seems to me that Fort River is clearly the better choice here. Like notice the test fits up Wildwood show very little green space for kids which will not meet the educational priority to have extensive outdoor learning space. And as Tim said, the Wildwood site poses more challenges and Fort River in terms of phasing. It's far more complicated to put in geothermal, which is a town priority to make this a fully net zero school net zero ready is not an option All of this makes me wonder what forces are at play behind the scenes here to make Wildwood look like a viable contender. What plans to some people in town have for Fort River that precludes locating the school there. I think we all need to know what's going on. Thank you. Thank you Tony. Russ Vernon Jones. Thank you. As a long time Amherst educator I truly thank each of you for your work on this final project. I found it alarming that this week some town counselors spoke publicly about possibly not complying with our excellent net zero public building bylaw for our new school building. It's a sad irony that this occurred on the very day that the IPCC released their latest report saying the climate crisis is even worse than we thought. This is the possibility of constructing a net zero ready building, rather than a net zero building. Let's be clear about what this means.  It doesn't mean that from the day this school opened, so it will be causing the emission of greenhouse gases that will hasten us toward climate disaster, shifting to let net zero later will not remove those greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. They will continue to worsen the climate disaster for centuries. I'd be willing to wager that most of you have a negative view of climate deniers.  While we're focused on Amherst and evaluating the morality of our decisions we do need to look at all of the effects that they will have. We are to decide not to follow its own bylaw and not build a net zero school. Not only would it shame our reputation and the Commonwealth and beyond, but it would also undermine the dedicated people all across the state, who are working to get their cities and towns to build net zero buildings, and it would strengthen the hand of those opposing meaningful climate action. I don't think that's the effect any of us want to have in the middle of an existential climate emergency. I spent the bulk of my lifelong career and education as the principal of the Fort River School, advocating for children and for resources for our schools. And I still have an unwavering commitment to the children of Amherst. The climate crisis is going to be the defining feature of the lives of those who are children today. Children learn from what we do, not just from what we say or intent. I don't want our children to learn that when we had the chance to make a difference, we didn't have the integrity and courage to insist on a net zero building, but instead relied on the dirty grid. Just at the time when it was crystal clear that we must replace and eliminate all burning of fossil fuels. You on this committee have a special opportunity. Please bring our town together behind a net zero school building that we can all be proud of. Thank you, Russ, Rudy Perkins. Rudy, if you unmute your, your in the meeting, Rudy, you need to do an unmute to unmute yourself. Got it. How's that. You got it. All right. Sorry about that. I totally agree with the thrust of the comments. Tony and Russ made and I'm not quite ready to pick which of the four options I think is best I'd like to see more information. So I'll just add a couple little things are not so little. The bylaw says that our renewable energy systems are systems that generate electricity. So the geothermal is not a renewable energy system from for from the standpoint of our bylaw. It's a little misleading to pull it out. So I agree it should be up in the, the costs, but the alternative of air to air might bring the cost down and it'd be interesting to see a comparison of the costs with geothermal and what that construction cost is and with air to air as a substitution. One important reason to set the PV separate from these other costs is that there's a 10% test in our bylaw, which determines certain things about whether that, for example, the PV system has to be owned or not fully owned. Or whether we can get power elsewhere for part of the supply. And that test is the numerator is the renewable energy systems cost. And the denominator is the total project cost without the renewable energy systems. So it's very helpful to have the PV called out from the total of the other project costs what they sum up to so that we can see where that test sits. And now it looks like we're way below the 10% but that will be useful and that will be discussed. I don't understand. In the prior meetings we talked about, or you all presented the ad reno is basically gutting to the exterior walls. And if that's the case, I don't see why we couldn't do a 105 750 square gross square feet ad reno version if you're basically going to the outside and you're carving out an interior courtyard. Why do we go to 108,000 doesn't allow us to compare the two options apples to apples. So that rid of the geo third geothermal so called actually ground source heat pumps. What would the solar cost go to, because it seems like that's going to have go to a more energy and efficient system, therefore will need more solar panels. I mean, if we do use this 108,000 gross square foot figure for the ad reno, why are the solar costs the same shouldn't they go up because we're heating and cooling, lighting and ventilating more gross square footage. Maybe it won't be a lot but it'd be interesting to see what that changes in the, the PV costs because again the PV is the numerator in this 10% test. Finally, it looked like the traffic study was going to recommend that we go with a second drive for a wildwood. And I assume that would be pretty pricey with the slopes there. So it'd be interesting to know what that cost would be. And I don't think we'd have that problem at Fort River, at least not a severe in terms of the traffic impact. And finally, I think it's useful to note the number of fields as was mentioned before that we get with Fort River that we don't get with Wildwood, even if it's just in a note to the construction costs because we're not. We want to be comparing apples to apples as much as we can. And so if you can get the spaces the same and note that we're getting a lot more fields if we go to Fort River, that would be great so thank you. Thank you, Rudy. Sarah Marshall. Sarah if you unmute your with us. I, do you hear me. Yes. Yes, good morning everyone. Just one comment at this point, and that is, if these cost numbers are as crude as has been repeatedly stated today. I think it is misleading to show them right down to the last dollar. I think perhaps you should just round them to the nearest million, or perhaps 100,000 but I think seeing, see, you know, we don't want people comparing options to the $100 level or 1000 or 10,000 so I, you know, you can add them all up to do the math but then round I think it implies a degree of confidence that you don't have at this point. That's all thanks. Thank you, Sarah. Peter Demling your Peter if you unmute your, your with us. Yeah, yeah, it takes a minute to get out as a panelist so Peter Demling I'm a member of the emmer school committee, speaking today just for myself and not for the committee. But first of all I want to thank everybody who has not been through the, the rigor of a public amorous decision process for those of you on the school building committee for the first time in this role thank you for your service. It's going to get harder. And so, you know, I appreciate your resolve. I just a couple of fact checks on some public comments so according to the data presented this very preliminary data by the way which the designer emphasized 100 billion times. The school building at Wildwood is the cheapest option. I mean I don't know how you can spin it otherwise but but that's just a fact and number two, $80 million is not the budget anybody gave. It was a placeholder for planning purposes that the town finance director was asked to give. And if you want clarification on that. But what that means then you can ask him Mr Morgano I'm sure he'd be able to identify that for you. And the third main point I want to make, given the level of paranoia, conspiracy and absolute lack of trust in our public officials that I've heard during public comment is that the job of this committee is to make sure that this project is in place and that failure and delay is not an option and while unanimity would be nice, both in the public and on this committee. It's not a requirement, and it's unlikely to happen and so I would ask you all to prepare yourselves to to steal yourselves in your resolve to vote the way that you think is in the best interest of the town because you have important votes in which some of your colleagues are going to disagree with you and claim that all of their detailed questions haven't been answered to this satisfaction. While that may be true, you're going to still then have a choice. Do we derail this entire process because of that, or do you go forward based on what you feel is in the best interest of the town. And to that I would want to, I will leave you with a quote from the petition in 2016 when residents having approved the last building project came to town meeting and asked them to reconsider approving the bond authorization. And that petitioner said while I also value the ideal of community harmony and town unity, we need to accept the reality that we will never have anything close to 100% agreement on a school change this size. We will always be passionate voices of descent. As a community, we have a history of making hard choices for the greater good, despite vocal opposition. This is not a new phenomenon for our town. According to a walking tour of Amherst our town hall building design costs so much controversy and disagreement 127 years ago, the 134 now that the Amherst record at the time stated. Bear in mind that the fact that the architect of the Cathedral of Milan, backed with the wealth of the universe could not have designed a village horse shed that would meet with the universal favor at the hands of citizens of Amherst. My friends, this is the community that we live in. So yes, ask your 100,000 questions, question authority, question sources, do your deconstruction. And then when the time comes vote, because there's a clear and urgent need to replace both Fort River and Wildwood as soon as possible for both fiscal but more importantly the educational needs of our children. Thank you very much for your service. Thank you Peter. And Jennifer show is the last person to bring in full. Hi there Jennifer show and I'm a member of the Amherst school committee. I have just two brief comments one, I think my comment in the previous meeting was misstated in the minutes from the February 18 meeting. I didn't say that I wanted to make sure the approval of the space summary was the responsibility of the school committee. What I said was that I wasn't aware until then that the approval of the space summary was the responsibility of the school committee, and I wanted to make sure that all committee members know that. So I hope that that can be corrected in the minutes. And I also just want to say that I think that I think that compromise is going to be a really important element of the success of this project, and that we should consider the way that we feel is best for the town but that we should also consider that other people consider other people's perspectives and consider that we may that just keep compromise in mind please thank you. Thank you Jennifer. Well, I want to thank our design team for an incredible amount of work and incredibly short time. And I also want to assure the public that we are not seeing information and holding it. We sent out as soon as we get it. Donis charts that came in yesterday. She said, do you want to comment on these and I said no way they're going right out, you know, so it's just you are getting it so I think there is a willingness to be amazingly transparent and send out something so you will get the microscopic sheet that Margaret quickly showed on the screen with the specs that were sent out and I personally feel like we are in the most exciting project that the Amherst has going right now, and we have the privilege of trying to forward this over the finish line by really making good decisions and foreign decisions. And I look forward to meeting with everybody again next week and remember, it's a, we are meeting not two weeks from now but one week from now to try to adhere to the and then we don't, we have a tentative meeting and I'll just confer with the NISCO on it. We were going to skip a few weeks before we come back, but that's going to be when we really come back and we start doing some much more detailed designs on these four possible alternatives to help us get from four to one, and from two sites to one by June, and everybody's comments questions concerns really come with them. So we can have robust conversations. So I want to thank everyone, and Donna is got her hand up so Donna I will call on you. Thank you. I just wanted to remind everyone that we do have a community meeting on the right on the ninth, and we'll be sharing a very similar presentation to the community as well. Thank you and building committee members we are posting it as a building committee meeting because we're sponsoring it doesn't mean you have to come. You have to come and there is a quorum I will declare a quorum. So it is where it's being sponsored by the building committee so it will be going up on our community calendar it's already gone out. It's already been posted as a flyer. And I will send a flyer to everyone so just so you remember it. It's a Dinesco zoom link, not a town zoom link, and it's on the flyer on how to get into the meeting. Thank you everyone and thank you for your willingness to stay a bit longer than our two hour time slot. We are adjourned.