This is the Fort River School Building Committee. It is Wednesday, September 11th, 2019. We are meeting in the police station community room, and we believe we're being recorded for broadcast on Amherst media. I will call us to order as we have the forum of committee members. The first item after the call to order is approval of minutes. I believe I distributed them. Did anyone have corrections to that? You know, it's hard for me to suggest it's over. But I don't know if you saw my late-breaking thought to add Tony's actual letter of comment, and instead of my summarizing it in item number that is the first on the public comment, three, to just put a note that it is the document attached to make it an additional one. I did see that email, and I should have probably distributed it, but I didn't do that, I don't think. Unless you think to it, I just thought it would be more accurate, it's another document that would sort of end in the front of us. Yeah, I kind of think it's the right thing to do to attach to the actual statement if you have one. I believe we've done that in the past. We have to delete this and make a note, too. Any other discussion on that or other comments, corrections? Okay. I would take a volunteer for recording today's minutes. Does anyone, by the way, need an agenda? Do we need to approve those minutes? Well, I guess we could approve it. My preference would be if folks will do it, approve with that correction or amendment one or addition or whatever you want to call it. Great. Second. All in favor? Okay. That way I don't have to as chair for two things at the end. I'm returning to that question of a minute-taker for tonight. While I haven't done them in a while, and I don't object to myself doing them, I'm a little nervous that if I have to approve them and do them, that that's probably not the right thing to do. I'd love it if someone would volunteer. You're hoping some of you have never actually done them I'd approve? Yes. Not that I'm pointing fingers at anyone, but if there's anyone who hasn't done them, maybe they should step up. I think everyone has done them. Oh, that's not true. That's not true. The person who's actually writing something down. Mr. Nakaji, by a sense, and a volunteer. Thank you. You're welcome. It was going to be an awkward pause that I was not going to be able to feel like I was going to look around. Next item is public comment. We do not have any members of the public today, or at least not yet. So we can move on from that. Does anyone want copies of the agenda? I made copies, but I wasn't sure. There you go. There you go. So the next item is kind of winding up to the events a week from yesterday, which is the presentation to the school committee and the town council of the nice, pretty big, heavy report that we have right here. Before we go into reviewing, I just want to ask one thing, just, I guess, to decide whether or not it's going to be a three-way meeting. In other words, are we going to have enough interest from our own group that we technically have to call ourselves into a meeting at that event? And if I could just get kind of a notion of who's planning to attend, and I know Maria, you're away, and I just saw a nodding on the head of no. Okay. It's a 17th at 6. So do you know at what time are we supposed to be there? We are the first thing on the formal agenda, and I'm going to let Eric cut me off if I get this wrong, but the last that I heard, I would expect that TSKP will probably have the OK to start talking it about quarter after, something like that. And I don't want to discourage people from going. I just want to know if I have to let the other bodies know that, by the way, we will also be at the forum. Will we be at the forum if they're both not here? I suspect we will not, but given that we have some members that aren't here tonight. So how does it work with Mike Morris? Mike is not a voting member. If Diane is there for other reasons, technically she would count for it. Or if Ben is there, that's the only way that you get to form. If everybody else in this room, except for Alice, and then I show up, that's how you get to form. Eric made the point that our committee is dissolved automatically upon presentation to the structural committee. Does that mean we are not in existence as of that meeting? That's way too technical. You know, to be cautious, I would say that it would be at the end of that meeting we would cease to be. I would also not be there. So it sounds like I can say that we... It settles the deal. It's sufficiently small. We won't be unlikely to be there. I'm going to be there. Should we just post it in the rebundance of caution? I may, but if I think if I do the math of who we have left on our committee with three gone, we won't get to one. I think just post it just in case so that we are not breaking any. I guess there's no harm in that. We don't control it, we don't control it, but then there's no harm. That is true. There's no harm in doing that. So that's what we'll do. Okay. So unless there's more to discuss on that topic, I would love to turn it over to Richard to start looking at the draft presentation for that event in six days. Sure. Then as we have time, I'll talk about the other items. Sure. So this evening I brought two bound copies of the report. There's one copy here between this number here. There's a lot of material. It's pretty impressive. It's printed on both sides. It's pretty heavy. It's got 629 pages. We encourage you to flip through it quickly. I know the appendix is 310 pages. Yes. I'm sorry? The appendix is 310 pages. Oh, okay. So the appendix alone is the appendix. So... I'm going to read it. Does anybody want to read it? Yes. So... Look, gone papers and printed them. It's a good quality paper. It looks good. Thank you. I would bring some copies to the joint meeting. And before everyone arrived, Eric and I were talking about how it did cost a little less than $100 per copy. So you get reimbursed and you provide whatever copies you want and have them delivered in advance. We provide them for the members of the school committee, the members of the town council. Oh, we could just do a few copies and submit them. That can be put to the superintendent's office, maybe to the city manager's office in your town library, maybe to the manager's office. Eric. In our discussion, my initial thought of that, since the way that most people are likely to access their report is electronically, that my thought was that we could have one copy for the John's Library, one copy for the school department, one copy for town hall, and then it files electronically transferred so that we can post them. That will be initially discussed in months and months in advance. I would be supportive of not making more use of paper than me. So how many copies top total? I heard three. That's three. Only three. I think you would deliver them to us collectively and somehow we would make sure they got to the place that they belong to. So I could bring the three copies that evening and that will look to you to indicate where they can be found. Yes, well, sorry. Are documents being collected somewhere else other than town hall or where it's like our minutes and all that sort of stuff? Much. I don't want to claim that we've got everything, but much of what we've generated is on the website, on the town hall or town's website under our example. Physical printouts much again is in a binder at the library. The library. So it's not nearly as robust as, because you see the report is that day, you can imagine if every time they brought one of these to a meeting, I had tried to put that in the library. Binders would be unruly. So that mostly just has media reports with attachments. That's why I kept advocating for things that the meeting attachments rather than loose things. That is a couple months behind now, but I envision that just being superseded by this. So if it goes to the library, it's going to be with any other papers that were captured? Yeah, I wouldn't envision retiring the existing binder and replacing it with this. As long as it would exist on the website if you wanted to go back and show things. So the question I have is that we have to go down because once we cease to exist, would there be still access to the documents or that would be hidden? Committees that are done are just archived. They're in their section, but everything that was there will still be accessible. Would we be archived on Wednesday morning? No, I'd probably need to tell someone, the bug master, that it was happening and I have no idea what the timeline is for that. But all that happens is there's a list of all the committees. We would move from the top to the bottom. But if you did Google search for River School Building Committee, you would still get there. One would assume, yeah. That's actually to check. Well, I don't think it would stop being crawled. I don't think that would happen. If that's what you're asking. I don't think there's a no-robot. I'm going to be getting too into the weeds. My question is also, did you have any thought as to whether Town Hall was going to put this document up somewhere that was otherwise accessible? If the committee is archived, is there some other place that goes, or B, does it go to the, do you assume the school department would put it up someplace? Or C, do you not know if we can figure it out later? I don't know. My assumption is that it would probably... I don't even know what office in Town would honestly take custody of. And probably facilities. Are you talking about on the website, or is it physical? No, I'm talking about the electronic. The electronic? It might not be just this. It would make sense that it would be on the district. I'm fine with that. I just wanted to know, because I figured if that's true, then one of my responsibilities, is probably to talk to Mike and others and make sure that we create a place that somebody is looking for. Forgive me for saying this. We have a community website, which makes sense in some ways. I want to make sure that there's a more visible location and someone doesn't have to let... I don't want someone to have to let go crazy searching to find the copy of the report. It should be easy to find. Sorry. Can I suggest that we add one more copy to give to the facilities... The town facilities, the school facilities, present change. We have a lot collected about information about one building. Facilities, like, okay, here. This is... Well, if we have the electronic... Sorry. We have the electronic copy. We can print off copies, too. And that makes what we want to do. We want to get $100 a pop. I don't think there's much use in getting it to the town facilities. Now that the town and school facilities have separated offices, their town facilities aren't really... Well, I mean, Rupert and Sean are not far from each other. I don't... I don't really see the need but I don't know if the school is actually here. So... I don't think we need them. I think if they have the electronic and there's a violent copy kicking around in the central office, if Rupert needs it, we'll just get it for Mike and look at it. Always look at the files. So the answer is three copies. I don't know. And Eric following up on getting it posted prominently somewhere in your role as a school community person. This is an initiatives tab. So, I guess I'll just ask this committee in the interest of full transparency. While this report has been drafted, I have not posted the various iterations of the report that have been hosted on their Google Drive. I didn't think that was really useful and potentially confusing if they were out there. Is everyone okay with the iteration, previous iterations of the report not being prominent anywhere? Not being available in front of the town? Anywhere, right? They wouldn't be now. I don't know about that. I mean, I was just going to make sure that prior to some time between tonight when we put the final across the T that an electronic copy is available so that any of the school committee members or council members or public that would want to look at it before the 17th can do so. So they're not going in completely cold like what you got, right? I mean, 600 pages, they should be able to prove it. I don't know about the iterations. I agree. That's the final one from here. That's my plan. I agree with Maria that after tonight we should have something. Even though the current iteration has some minor corrections, I think it's so complete that it'll be valuable to folks who want to read ahead a little bit. I hope they do because there's a lot here as we're about to turn to Richard and talk about what subset he can actually get through in a 20-minute presentation. And really, it's really about where we are now. There's a term of architecture called, or at least one of my form partners used it, called the making of the sausage. There's a certain amount of iterative work that there really isn't a lot of, to me, a lot of value in having to post them when you're getting the goals to get towards what we have now that represents the body of the work. And so I would say let the iterative pieces go. Okay? So you want to keep going? Sure. So this copy obviously says Final Draft on it. We were able to incorporate everyone's comments that were made on this document up until the 9th early this week. I think the last comments we received, I believe they were from Heather. And those have not been incorporated. Was it last week? No, no, no. The last one. Sorry, the last. Well congratulations, that's fine. I was the last one. So that's why this version has these pink tags on them, because we will incorporate Heather's comments in the version that we deliver. So you can see this is already marked up with Heather's comments. So that will be taken care of. So we're going to take out the word draft. It will just say Fort River Elementary School feasibility study. And we'll have Tuesday statement. And going through this, I was chagrin to see that there are no credits here. We need to make sure that we indicate who participated in this process, such as all members of the building committee. I'm going to look to you Jonathan, because I have a list of names. There are a few people who are no longer here that were certainly participants really on. Yeah, I want to make sure we put them in here. Traditionally we also include the superintendent of schools as well as well as my firm and all the consultants that were engaged in this process. Current and past membership is on the website. But I will commit Richard to looking at the website and making sure that there's like no person that acts that way. So that will be done as well. I'm going to talk about the PowerPoint draft in a minute. But this is a really good report. Just as a reminder and maybe I will tell the school committee that this report is done in a format that is consistent with the MSPA studies. That's why we have labels for each section on section one introduction. Section two, educational program and so on. That's exactly what the MSPA expected. This is not an MSPA project but I think it would be a benefit to the town in the future to find similar kinds of things here so I can explain that. That's the reason for it. So there are seven sections plus appendices. The appendices include things like the 1880 energy file law, the geotechnical report done by consultants and accessibility investigation cost estimates two cost estimates that were reconciled and have been reconciled in this document. The response from Massachusetts natural heritage and endangered species department site surveys in here indoor air quality reports that were done. The roof report the MSPA total budget worksheet which is the standard worksheet that the MSPA uses to calculate eligible reimbursement. There are after looking through this document I believe that there are some diagrams that may be useful in the PowerPoint. For example there is not currently in the draft but it might be useful such as the site map that I think is much clearer when it comes to the wetlands boundary and for river watercourse that's not a new diagram so I will incorporate that. You will incorporate the flat map the new flat map. It's the flood map that will show page 63 of this report. We have some interest in that. Looking at this you might want to rotate this picture so it aligns with all those maps over there. So the door is up. Yes. So it's easier. I should have read it exactly before I came but my memory from my last correspondence with Mike is that that TSKP will have about 20-20% 15-20 minutes. 15-20 minutes presentation and then the assumption was that the committee and the council would have lots of questions. So the item obviously is intended to go 45 minutes to an hour or something more like an hour. What we want to think tonight about the challenge of presentation is like 32 slides or something or something. When I reviewed the presentation that's obviously way too many. They're really good though I like them. Well Maria had some very good comments and we're going to drop them in slides. Now we did get the comments from Maria. You said that you sent comments on the PowerPoint as well. I think they were attached to some of the comments of Maria but they were on the side. They were on the side. They were not written, they were as comments. There were some. Just to orient us the printout we have here all the markups are from Maria. That is my handwriting. All the work copies have your right. I thought that would be a good way to do it rather than. We should just show those. We could show that. I thought it was the quickest way for us to incorporate her comments. Are you moving to the presentation now? I'm not quite. I have a feeling it won't work. There's a diagram in here that talks about different mechanical systems. You won't see that in the PowerPoint but we're going to incorporate that diagram as well with that chart. Those are the things we want to incorporate. Also in reviewing this I saw that this building committee was formed two years ago. Not quite. Very, very close. I think you realize the amount of effort that you put into this. We did. I'd like to say that to everybody. There could be some new people in the audience on those boards that aren't aware of that. This was not a casual study. That's why you're bringing copies of this. This is not a casual study. That calendar of events and meetings is also in this. Let's refer to this graph PowerPoint. Page numbers may be a little scrambled because we may have shuffled some pages for this. They're in the order that she had recommended although the numbers were not changed. The first slide is this slide. This orientation of the project. The existing site, existing building. Basically what I the message is is that it took several months of work. We had a number of consultants looking at the existing building. I think what I've said before is that you can see the configuration of the building. It's a one-story building. It has these little courtyards. These holes in the roof. And that the goal of the study was to examine the various options for improvements in Fort River School. The expansion for some combination. And in doing that we tried to address two questions. Both two questions. The orientation about this. This is where I think we'll add that slide about the map. We'll talk about Fort River. We'll talk about the flood plain. We'll talk about how additions can be built here without encroaching the homes. On this page, Maria is suggesting that we drop it. I don't have a problem dropping it. But maybe here we talk about all of the studies that were done that make reference to this report. The number of air quality studies. The roof study, the geotech report. All of that that you mentioned. That can be found in here. I don't have a chart here that explains how many studies that were done. That was part of it. I don't have a chart here. I guess one question I have is I don't mind at all if there's a different enumeration of the things we studied. But I guess my question would be if your analysis is showing that there are a number of existing conditions that would lead one to want to substantially renovate the building. Is that captured anywhere else in the PowerPoint? After me? No, no, no. This is a statement. This is a sort of enumeration of a bunch of reasons why somebody would look at the building and say, well, whatever we do we know we're going to need to do a lot of work. Essentially. And it's the handling of some of those things. And I'm just saying that's why I asked the question. That is true. I'm not going to put that in the non-negotiables. Which cases that are in it? Are you sure? Well, yeah, but that's actually slightly different. These are the non-negotiables. But I guess what I'm saying is is that if you I guess what I'm just saying is maybe this is more said than written is that if in your view your conclusion is you can understand why in the school district we're interested in looking deeper into the building because whether we re-habit do an addition or new construction there are a significant number of sufficient existing conditions to warrant that work. And hear you enumerate that and that's not enumerated elsewhere especially because the non-negotiables are more about the adequacy of the building design rather than its condition. Yeah, I agree with Eric that I think it's important that a summary of what was found in all the reports is presented rather than just saying if you want to know what we found read all these reports I feel like that's kind of that's not, I mean some people the only thing they're ever going to see is this and I think it's important that and since we have it that we list the things that we're seeing and discover the reports. Does this audience feel like they'd be unfamiliar with it? Well there's really in a way multiple audience presenting for the school committee and the town council but in truth we're also presenting for the public and so while we want to make sure the town council and the school committee hear and understand as best they can in 20 minutes the outcomes of this study we also want to do our best to make sure the public is confused so I'm going to say no because I don't think there's any I mean this has been discussed in many different forms in many different ways why we're doing this study I don't think there's anybody that's confused about that and the work of the committee was just that was the lead up to it and then what we're saying in the very short amount of time that we have is that's been done that's there but we want to tell you what we did and what we did was to do all of these analyses and produce these options and did this so it's more of the work of our committee and there's just I mean if we spend I don't think you can do that and not spend several minutes there and I don't think it's several minutes that we have Well let's do this here's some disagreement on the topic of this slide let's continue on and return to it and see if some of the concerns that some have with the leading entirely can be Okay I have suggested many times when you do a presentation of how slides that you don't show but you have them because you know there's going to be a question it goes at the back so if you have somebody comes and asks questions okay this is what we identified but not again if it's a 20 minute presentation this is going to come up in a question right that is probably true so then if they want to because yeah we identified this it's here this is the report that's a thing and we've also set this up by what are our two things we were set out to do is the site buildable and one of the options so the slides should really focus on this I like this idea putting it in the back okay so for the time being I'm going to bend the corner same thing and we can revisit it but it certainly can be a resource slide should the question come on we're on the next slide existing conditions slide shows a few pictures of the existing building the floor plan of the existing building talks about inadequate classroom sizes Maria suggesting that we delete that so that could be a resource slide the same way we did the other I'm just going to I don't actually care if these slides are in there I don't care if the previous one or this one's at I don't actually care if it goes through the reports what I'm actually saying is when you do your presentation if you allied from here's what we chose to do the site is buildable and then you immediately go into oh and here are our options for building and because we did actually we go through the enumeration of reports a lot of the reports had to do with looking at the soundness of the building the soundness of the site and all that kind of stuff so in fact existing building conditions was a major part of the work that we sponsored and I think I think it's I mean so I guess what I'm asking you if I don't really care about the slides but I'm asking you because I think putting them in the back as resources are fine what I'm asking you is what will you talk about the fact that you're familiar with these buildings and that you've looked through these resources and you know the open classrooms the model that everyone's moving away from yes you know which is what is on that I mean and my point is when we talk about having 20 minutes to talk I'm not saying you write four paragraphs and you speak for five minutes on a subject I'm asking if any sentence is going to come out of your mouth that expresses these sentiments yes I think that's absolutely critical to summarize what I found in this facility as an architect who's done this many times and I can report to you that educationally there are some serious deficiencies mechanically et cetera right and because even though we have I mean this is forgive me for saying this but in past projects that have been proposed in this town people have argued about the basic underlying fact pattern not just about proposed alternatives and so the idea that we've just gone through a study that evaluates the underlying fact patterns of the building conditions and at the end of that process we're not actually going to speak to it at all makes no gosh darn sense and so again what I'm saying is it doesn't need to be belabored it could just be a couple sentences yep I understand that is part of the reason why what we did it could be discussed in terms of what's on the slide I'm sure we would compromise to leave in the slide on option F which sort of touches on you're just fixing the existing building here here come yeah I think that Jonathan's idea I'm going through and then looking at that let's make our way through and we can okay and the slide for the future both have a word graph but in this slide which is the educational space there is information that is correct that's 84,000 should be 85,000 because that's exactly what the option range was the range was from 70,000 to 85,000 so that should be corrected I'm going to take out the bottom line here MSBA guideline adjusted that's completely relevant the MSBA guideline is the 72,742 the next three lines of just explanation why the square footage has to be larger because of these factors such as the MSB class of guidelines such as the special ed requirements such as the pre-jed I think in support those square footages add on to the MSBA guideline which is why we're at 85,000 can I suggest this is maybe a grammatical thing when I read pre-k administration and support the support is not just for the pre-k it's support for the whole school no it's additional support that's for pre-k I thought it was because in the description on the report it's because we have an extra pair room we have an extra pair room an extra there are a couple of other pre-k administration things that were not pre-k but they were for the school I can look at the section on the space description just for that on the tabulation of spaces no I can I can look for it but I think it's because if I read like this it means that it's the 1700s just for the pre-k and support and I think the pre-k administration was 300 square footages but there was an extra the school had asked for more things that are not typical of an MSPA program another five minutes so while he means doing that we can continue this page will be corrected the next page which is the educational space needs this is the tally the basis I can just mention the fact that the report has draft educational space by the way it says draft on it and I believe Heather I think it was your comment to suggest taking the word draft out of that section so that as this word draft on the educational space specifically what is an explanation of why it confused me very early on we said what do you want to include in the building and I said typically we asked the school administration to prepare an aspect and Michael said he could do that and what he was going to do is modify the previous aspect that was done for the previous project we put draft on it I don't think that that a full vetting process would have been endorsed by the school board by the school committee in a way that would be compatible with a project that was actually since art were kind of unique in that structure it stopped at a certain point so if let's say this were an MSBA project it would be an aspect that would be endorsed by the school committee approved by the school committee and then folded into documentation and the process happened it was Michael's best attempt at dividing the spaces necessary for this population so you're arguing about leaving draft on there is essentially you want to clarify for any future reader that they should confuse this with an official statement of the school department correct or think that they can take this and build the school front it's on your way can you add that language like immediately proceeding it seems like there was a little introduction learned in the report that that kind of information could go there explain draft because I think that's really helpful information sensible and reinforcing it with a big draft makes sense you better hope that that's recorded so I have to come as one a slide like this nobody's going to be able to read yes I don't think there's any disagreement about taking the and then it's in page so it's on page 38 on the description of the space for example on administration and guidance says just for administration we exceed by 1148 square footage but the pre-crate or the national office is only 300 square feet you have other things like pictures for rooms a hundred square feet 150 second guidance office so the extra space is not just because of the pre-k it's because there is a maker space that is not included there is second guidance office parent room, teachers' workroom so can we say pre-k spaces? all these are not pre-k spaces that's what I'm saying 1700 is not pre-k spaces that's what I'm saying is that the support some of that might actually be pre-k support space but it's also just general support space yes building on the pre-k it's an extra when we were discussing the spaces with the school officials they were asking for an extra guidance office a parent room, a teacher's workroom they need to verify that because in the book there is a chart, an MSBA worksheet I want to make sure that that's correct and not just reflect that in that now maybe the errors they are not here page this one it's page just after this I don't see that number exactly so what I'm going to do is verify what that is I think these things I'm going to add up page 37 you think it's page 37? the question I have about that you're saying that that 137 says it's like 300 square feet for pre-k administration what about pre-k just in general? is it pre-k and add on to this? would it be in classrooms too? yes but in classrooms it would be more than this over 900 square feet so these I think are pretty sure I guess what I would say is since it's not quite clear what whether this number is correct just ask that you do it between now and Tuesday make sure that it's correct that the label is clear I think it's pre-k administration and school support should we combine these two separate lines? yes so it's pre-k and extra support requested by the school so you think that should be two lines? yes one is part of pre-k and the other one is the extra second-guidance office, the bedroom and things that are not additional support spaces? yes but the right thing to do is just go back and affirm it whatever it truly is make it clear just to check off another thing if we can get that as we go along for the educational program it does say the following educational program draft was originally developed for a proposed elementary school in Amherst and has been amended by the superintendent's office for use in this study there you go are we good with that? that's very clear you did yes so if you have I heard that if you have the teacher's room the parent room, the second-guidance office the pre-k coordination and the main space so that means the charge missing the actual classroom should we pay? something's amiss we'll correct it if anything that's an old favorite slide it's been kicking around I have a feeling that might be part of the problem it's an oldie but goodie that needs to be updated it still goes its job but we don't have to be right just back to what Maria just read if you could add the information about the typical process that a program like this would go through and be approved I think that would be helpful in addition to that information why isn't it just the superintendent has to say I think it helps explain how this is separate from a typical MSBA study and that would be a step should we move this forward this program would have to be voted we can't just move this education program forward as it stands here because it would need to be approved by a school committee that's correct so the cool thing is you can turn the page we've already agreed on the next slide yes I know I keep doing that it makes us feel productive this is one project again hold on to it in case somebody has a question oh yeah absolutely anyone has any concerns with the following slide which is another great holding Mark do explain it if you don't have that the non-negotiable yep that's fine the next slide shows the oops sorry can I raise one question about that I just noticed when we got into the discussion of the problems the issue of security control and surveillance was that something that was in our design non-negotiable so we're not meeting kind of modern school security yeah or is that just assumed that's what we did that's kind of assumed then we've got to make it half way yeah I think though it doesn't hurt for Richard to re-hit that nail on the head that somewhere in this conversation to note that what we have in two schools is really way behind the times when it comes to just basic interest here three actually four or five okay I'll be honest with you throwing that in to the non-negotiables if it's easy to do and if it's not easy to do don't the reason I say that is because that's actually relevant to how you conceptualized some of the renovation ones it's very relevant how you conceptualize the renovation ones so it's important to actually make the point because also if I were sitting there on the council and I was just coming to the subject I'd be like did you think about the security issues the answer is we did think about them and incorporated into the cost absolutely we've been sitting there I know that he's playing a role right now I will add security as a bullet point okay I have this feeling that it comes out in another slide too because then again I've sat through a number of these things I kind of used to hearing design options design options all the way through F Maria's suggesting he had a slide after this of the HVAC options so this is the slide that I just referred to here at HVAC to explain that HVAC was a big factor in evaluating the whole matrix of the group of options yeah maybe this is obvious but when I read this existing smaller gem though on the two if they flashed through my mind wait are we doing this to deal with the existing smaller gem or we retaining the existing smaller gem and I wonder if for the people who haven't been involved just putting the word retaining on top of each of those clear what you're getting because that seems to be a main point about these two which could be a drawback to you as you can see there's a difference in square footage we retained but at the same time we expanded we incorporated some of the storage areas into the gem in these options but does the gem itself get larger for the gem I think we put a balcony with mechanical no we put the bleachers there would be space for bleachers or the storage behind so the space behind the columns was incorporated into the gem area to use some of the space for the gem those are those are supporting the elements the play area of the gem stages yeah those would be MSDA guidelines for a gem mostly retained it's here an existing point I would advocate I think it's okay just to add retaining we can talk to that it can be explained it's one of those things these are going to be on a much bigger screen than that but nonetheless it doesn't necessarily help add that slide afterwards the sustainability in net zero that's pretty clear just says that if you do it there's an additional benefit there's an additional reimbursement this net zero slide will be keep me posted back before we delete it can I ask a question when I looked at the numbers here again that struck me if you go to a target goal of 60 to 70% energy savings and you work off the 84.4 number you get a KVTU an EUI of 25.3 is 33.76 as the target and I'm wondering I don't think we can address this exactly now that I want to come back to the issue in a different form but am I reading that correctly that the 84.4 would be more or less the school built to ordinary code at this point so when I put that if we were retaining this slide I would want to have a bracketed note that that meant an EUI of 25.3 or 33.76 because that's a significant piece of information that we're sort of missing the market we go 50 so I'm fine I guess because we're going to come back to the energy issue in a different form if this is deleted but well so maybe because that diagram shows up later we're talking about option A and option EUI 50 and option EUI 30 so maybe honestly it's been a long time I haven't even read that what was on the y-axis there but maybe it's put parenthetically if it is true this is EUI 50 and this is EUI approximately 30 to give people an idea is that what you're mean with that I would recommend we take out goals 60 to 70% because people like you who will do the numbers they're just puzzled so I think it's better not to show that number and just indicate that we did the study best upon on an EUI of 15 or 30 and then talk about the relative merits of that that we would rather be to get into the weeds of it I honestly think it's going to go I don't want to say this point this way it's too deep a topic so the bigger point of deleting this because I've forgotten this diagram sort of resurfaces later in microscopic form that's fine but it's definitely it's very visual and getting rid of the words is good it's weirdly easy to understand when it's less replegible I don't know we're trying to go down so I guess my question is since we're deleting a few of the slides after this which are not only a problem you're teasing people in the previous slide about sustainability net zero you're only mentioning the fact that it provides you a financial benefit and then you're making them wait like another 15 slides before you get to the punchline of what you're doing and I'm just trying to figure out are these the things all in the right place should this slide if you're going to do that should this slide on sustainability net zero be put later or with the other slides or when you're talking about it what are you going to say to help people understand that if you just wait 10 more minutes you'll be learning an awful lot more about sustainability net zero and I'm saying this because this is actually a matter of really intense interest by members of the town council and others they're going to be super super interested in this you can expect to get a bunch of questions about it and if you're just teased with that and then you leave them hanging for another 10 minutes they're going to be fidgety in their seats so yeah I was the one that suggested moving it back and the reason that I suggested to after we're talking about cost is because if you have it in the front you're talking about cost before you even talked about the option so it was kind of like this is what we did these are all the ways that we looked at handling it multiple age back systems multiple energy efficiencies these are this is the variety that we took into account here's the actual drawings and then talk about going back to EUI go back to all of those energy efficiencies when you're talking about cost because that's where the costs are actually the other reason why I moved this slide this slide I would move back and probably by the way I'd actually move it back after those slides on the options and approaches is because I can tell you already for a fact that what the town is interested in is what are the alternatives to comply with the net zero by law what are the ranges of options if we're doing so how do we do it and then how much does it cost just in a dollars and cents way and so this information about here's the reimbursement or a bonus you can get from MSBA is honestly not on point for what I'm not saying you don't delete the slide but it's totally not on point for what people actually care about is what would it even look how do we visualize and understand complying with this by law what are the options and then I think it'll be a revelation to some folks that there are different ways you can comply like another entire notion you can comply at EUI 50 or 30 will be a learning experience for people and that's a good thing for people to learn my suggestion was to move we started talking about the design let's keep the design together and then the energy to move keep the design together and then move it before this one I like the idea of moving it back but I actually would like to add a note that the committee expresses no opinion whether EUI 50 is sufficiently energy efficient to meet the requirements of the net zero by law because I think it's an open question and should be explored at the time right we get to school building committees what the target is what was the spirit and intent and what we should be aiming at and I fear this may be used as an expression of our opinion that EUI 50 will suffice that's the question is this report an expression of our opinion or is this an expression of our opinion I didn't actually think this report I didn't think this report was an expression of our opinion but I think what Ru's trying to if I could paraphrase you a little bit I think I want to make sure that it doesn't seem like an endorsement of a certain level which is going to have to if I can strap a little bit that will need to be re-looked at as part of a next process because the right answer for a next project might be 25, 35 that has to be kind of how would you approach the answer to that question that's a good question well that zero can be achieved in a variety of ways and whether EUI 30 or 50 and all of the things that you have to do that cost money by the way to achieve EUI 30 or 50 is something that you can explore when you get into the details of a specific project this shows you ranges shows you ranges and it shows you the initial cost but our bylaw actually not only requires us to generate the energy that's used but to create a highly energy efficient building and obviously that's going to be interpreted that's going to be subject to argument and I just, I don't want to foreclose I don't want to imply that we know that that parameter includes 50 EUI and that you can therefore just match that with solar panels and you comply with the bylaw I think it's an open question and we should leave it at that was there a specific language in that in the report that you're suggesting we amended this point or are you thinking for this presentation there's something that you can feel like well when I thought this slide would be in here I thought just a footnote or somewhere where the 50 EUI was mentioned that there's just an asterisk note that the question of whether 50 EUI I was going to say the committee expresses no opinion about it but if you're right this is not going to arise that the question of whether 50 EUI is sufficiently energy efficient to comply with the Amherst bylaw well isn't it implied because we present both the 50 and the 30 that's my issue you're saying you want to not present the 50 I think it should be left as well personally I would say yes 50 was wrong but that's too big of a question to open at this late date so I thought a good way to express it was to make sure it was seen as an open question that we weren't endorsing this necessarily or that the report had not concluded that 50 EUI was sufficiently energy efficient to comply with there's language in the report are you finding that right now where we said that something if there was a note like the committee doesn't feel like the 50 is in the spirit of the net zero bylaw because the net zero bylaw says yeah it's in there somewhere I just went to the net zero bylaw if you know it's in the narrative I'll try to find it and then you're still standing well that's I want to lose that thread but at the same time I want to make sure we move forward and I ask for the time I might watch that 633 Eric I'm kind of you can close that so in the past net zero section EUI 50 the less innovative of the two is the base of the range and approximates the building which is designed to be current energy cost but goes no further toward energy reduction concern was raised by members of the committee as to whether EUI 50 is sufficient to be considered incorporating highly efficient standards as required bylaw however there are no specific standards reference to determine compliance that's yeah to build on actually it's funny because that reinforces what I was going to say is that I don't have any problem I mean I think it makes sense actually you essentially put forward a proposal I'm trying to find the right words to use for a certain energy building at least in the components that are new construction I don't think in that regard you were making a definitive legal judgment that the town would find that it complied with the bylaw which are two different statements yes they are two different statements and that conforms with what's in the report now so for the purposes of the presentation for the purposes of the presentation what I heard was moving this slide further back so that would leave us at the pretty pictures I don't think we've commented yet on the notion of the leading F but personally I'm okay with the leading F we're just leaving it as a resource slide it's weeding a nice presentation I agree so we jump right to 100% new and what that means, what that looks like with the ratio of square footages where it goes and then we explain option B I have a comment so again this drawing is UI50 I don't know if you have to verify because of the amount of solar panels it's option A UI50 we need to verify that because all the solar panels are here or maybe just we wish to draw your attention to the building itself you can't really believe them all we have a meta diagram but somebody might ask I think if someone asks we can I think the point is this illustrates the strategy for how to replace the building on the site but not address energy you do it with a two-story building south of the existing building that's the point should be a less of an addition some demolition of existing renovation option C is building north side option D is two additions you put all this before during the presentation I'll spend a little more time explaining it and then option E is a very small addition to build basically a 3K area with a separate 3K country and create right and create a quarter or simple so this now talks about duration of construction the number of months that it would take points out that options E and F option E requires temporary classrooms or swing space swing space not classrooms I'm sorry swing space but not classrooms we've all looked at this many many times but for some folks the notion that the project could have to vary between 22 months and 36 months will come as an interesting revelation that's a big difference it's somewhat counterintuitive that the new build where you're doing the whole building is not to me but to I think the lay audience that's the shortest time frame and will you mention why it sprawls out in time as you get into renovation I'll just talk about that briefly how you have to take chunks of the building at a time while keeping the rest of it safe you end up with redundant systems extra means of egress you can't start bang the whole thing out at once which is the most efficient way to trade this to work and the other thing I would whether it comes out in question is the notion that you can build the new building its entirety effectively while still continuing to use the existing facility it's an important piece of information so the next slide Maria pointed out the figures are wrong so that can be corrected but also you are asking that the square footage cost I liked it in the report we had talked about this it was great for the town and I thought that that was helpful and I think some people think in terms of cost per square foot it didn't show up kind of anywhere else in the presentation so I thought this might be a good place to put it I just took it from I know we've gone back and forth about this a zillion times the fact that we wouldn't do option A as a CM procurement I think when this is going to be the first time I'll get a sort of comparison of all of them I would be inclined to put the GC price in option A just highlight that as GC because that's how you do it before putting it down below in a parenthesis that's almost what we have am I missing it you do talk about actually a couple of times about the procurement but I think maybe you can say we're going to come back to A and talk about I don't know I would rather keep everybody the CM number and just say here's how they compare apples to apples using the same method a little bit later about the additional benefit to going to option A this is going to be the first impression on the class and people are going to go oh my god new building $8 million more than the nearest one instead of two something the way we would actually build it I understand the logic of keeping and we have gone back and forth can you slash here I can I can reformat this slide and add a figure below an asterisk and say we'll talk about this in a little bit but you know so it's there and also have a square foot number associated which is I think $534 so in my opinion anyone that knows the difference between this and GC will know to either look or to ask the question so I would default to Rudy's position of presenting the more real numbers and we can go into the method if it asked but I wouldn't be able to show the CM I would so my question speaking of whether we have to I just mean like what are we trying to convey with this slide what information do we want people to get out of it that there's a range of cost estimates you can make different choices of how you approach it and those different choices have different costs I mean you're the one who's going to be answering I mean I'm not sure that I'm just saying like you're going to be telling people what this slide means when you stand in front of them and I'm just not sure what you're trying to convey to people because unless you're teaching people about CM construction manager methods versus general contractor unless you're trying to convey something interesting about that method it seems to me what most people are going to do when they look at this is they're going to do a Rudy's and they're going to say oh apparently this is where we find out they got unveiled what we think the range of costs might be for the project and but then we're immediately going to say so you should look at this but by the way I'm going to modify this later I'm not actually going to show you another slide that shows you the modifications so you can actually compare all in one place what's going on but actually I didn't really answer the question I'm actually serious what are you trying to get people what I'm trying to get at here is that my recommendation for all of the options except A you should do using the CM method because the CM will allow you to phase it safely work with the educators who have to live in this building to accommodate their testing schedule temporary measures dust controls etc you need a CM A doesn't tamper with the existing school days and the activities of the school it can be handled using a GC method so my recommendation A you do with a GC method so my question my question is why don't you modify the slide so say CM method for all except A and under A say GC method and when you describe to people why you're doing it you're going to explain to them why you recommend one method for one and the other for the others or you can even put it in a footnote in the bottom to explain to people why you're choosing to do this but then all the information is conveyed at the same time Maria I disagree because I think you have to have it there because we are not making those decisions in the future for whatever reason we could the town whoever could decide to go with a CM method or a GC method so we're not saying that this would be GC method we're saying that you could do GC method and the advantage to that is you would save 10% the disadvantage is that you lose some I mean while there may not be as much to gain from a contract manager you could make that decision so I think it's I think it's got to be part of it and there's going to be a whole big thing coming up about about what benefits you get from doing general contractors so I think you got to leave it there and then not to mention at the top so maybe my enthusiasm for GC in certain scenarios was inappropriate I do think GC is maybe I shouldn't make that a strong recommendation maybe I should say there are a lot of reasons why I have seen towns go with the CM method it's a discussion by the town later I will tell you from my experience the GC method could save you money it's a discussion it should be had by the town it's an appropriate time Heather and then Anthony I believe you could make it clear on this slide by promoting both of those pieces of information on this slide I think you can keep the CM method at the 63.1 and then in parentheses below it you know GC method, this cost which would be appropriate for option A only or most likely some sort of method because I think it gets awkward and I don't want to strongly push the GC it's really a bigger question that the town will need to grapple with later Anthony I'd like to strongly push the GC but if we are in fact dealing with an abundance of caution that we shouldn't then shouldn't we have one slide like this for CM and an identical slide for GC no because you wouldn't do GC for the you wouldn't do CM this is a recommendation that we do GC that's what we've got the case studies and the three options to talk about that that's the question are people comfortable with what Heather just suggested no I mean seriously as if people are let's move on okay really can I suggest that we move this slide then following it gets into GC the university trade or is that we're not ready I would defer to Richard because this is really his his presentation is kind of making maybe jumping to reimburse but I just have you know A as CM GC I have a question should it be this slide before this one so this is saying because this one it's okay but there's a multiple methods truth is here we are taking one age back that is most likely not the one that would be recommended and that's why we have the case studies afterwards but we are putting some numbers here that do not correspond to maybe the most adequate to this design just as I we could flash this one and say okay we have numbers for all these combinations just for the sake of comparison these are these are some numbers but okay but so I kind of watched what you were talking about HVAC I think the numbers that I put here are all for HVAC 6 and actually that's not what in principle would be recommended for all these systems it's only just to be able to compare opposite to opposite those numbers and I think there was just thought to put okay let's pick HVAC 6 for all of them and that's the number that we're going to be comparing but truth if you were building it's not that you would do HVAC 6 or there was a suggestion not to do HVAC 6 for all the systems because some were more adequate than others for each of the options so my suggestion was to flip the two slides okay we look at all these but this is too much information so okay let's focus on these although this might not be the most ready for the HVAC system but just to be able to compare these are the numbers okay so I think getting back to what Eric said is what's the point of this slide and it's to hold all variables but one constant right HVAC 6 465 students which you probably should mention too for a certain size school and to just look at how we developed plans for six different ways to approach it holding everything else the saying this isn't comparison we are you can say in the strongest of terms don't focus on these numbers as the be all and end all there are different ways to approach each of these options which we're going to talk about because we did case studies and just be emphatic about don't block don't get blocked in there's more to this story keep listening so this slide should come beforehand it shows the full range of things we looked at yes maybe even highlight them so that they write enough it is almost really the point of the message you're conveying people can understand that there's multiple variables that we've worked through then by the way move off the slide as fast as possible before people focus on that it's ales and start asking you yes there's a lot of ways to do this right exactly we've looked at it the other thing is we focus on this bottom line here we are we're not going to subscribe there three weeks later seems like I'm the contrarian tonight but I actually like this slide going first because it gives you a pictorial reminder of what is each option what does the percentage do and the approximate relationship costs really quickly what I can do is I can drop this stuff out just as a quick reminder we'll get to cost we'll come back to this slide but this this reminder shows all of the variables that we say we're going to pick the 465 option 6 for mechanical and then this reappears the numbers this is really micromanaging but what if these pictures came in here and I find these easier to grasp so I can do that and I think this is good when I look at this on a powerpoint slide my eyes are different we don't want people that's exactly the point we want people to say oh my god doesn't that look complex there's a lot of variables a lot of stuff to look at that's actually all there's going to get at that point you make a good point it needs to be smaller so it looks fuzzy to anybody that is our strategy I agree with that I'm moving the pictures I'm conceding and going with this but the mind-numbing one first mind-numbing on movie first but most pictures are in store so I have a question are we putting these pictures on this if I had a choice I would do the pictures pictures are more provocative doing the pictures good you're doing okay got that all Richard okay 655 we have to leave but I don't have to be done early because I don't have any dinner just saying blah blah blah now we're back now we're back to Richard we're on the net zero premium option A what's the what's the suggestion no that was when it was in a different location oh it's in the other location yeah the big graph yeah yeah and then you'll present these ones right about the difference between so this is how net zero manifests itself I think this is a good way to manifest can I suggest something maybe this is too much micromanaging the picture is huge the numbers are small you want to make a future emphasis on the amount of solar panels or these numbers maybe the square foot numbers no no the question is the pictures takes two thirds of the slide are small and these pictures are small if you make the actual sides smaller I think people need to see the extent of the photo I would agree I think it's okay that the the images are dominant I don't think there's going to be time to really get into the I thought it was interesting that in between actually between the two options the difference in cost it's only one you can think of between year 15 and year 30 the actual difference cost 1.2 million dollars you might think it's much bigger so that's I thought the message between these two I think is relevant between year 30 and year 50 for many people it's going to be I think you bring out the important point I'd say that I think it has to I think that's why I was thinking if this was actually reinforced and highlighted because if not people just remember the number of solar panels and I think but actually the cost difference between the two is quite small it's quite small decreased font so I'm going to move forward you have someone else that the question of too much info my answer is I like it I like it whether you talk through it a ton or not because again my experience with people in town we're going to be at this meeting and this information is something they care deeply about knowing and in fact actually the more we can move off of sort of atmosphere of unintended sort of atmosphere of questions around what it means to be you know climate friendly and all that more to so what does it actually mean for us because there's a hunger to understand what does it actually mean for us and so the fact that there's some details you don't have to talk to all of them they can just be there I guess when you get into Q&A folks will want you to go back to that slide I want to ask you questions about that slide so the only reason that I put that would be fine with that the next slide kind of has a lot of the same information so that's you know a lot of the same information is presented in two different ways in two different slides there's not much time to present so I would leave that to Richard's discretion about how you're buying them but yeah I think both slides have important let me try to let me try to combine them into one slide that would be good actually that would be good okay good so Richard are you going to take off those details you've talked about stripping the paid 4K to you and are we we're back on the illustration so I'm out of order there well I am going to strip them off yes and then would it be appropriate to make the point that in the presentation that 50EUI is not necessarily or that that's an open question I have a feeling it's going to come up in conversation but yeah I'll leave it to Richard as to how to kind of work that in because we're going to obviously we're going to talk about 30 and 50 and give some context to why we as a group we're favoring the 30 Heather just thinking about combining these two slides seems like there's kind of two sets of important information one is sort of how we live in these buildings which is a variable but also what can be done in a renovation versus new construction and that's going to be a big decision having people understand that all the things that you can do in a new construction are not the same things that you can do for renovation that there's a difference there and how you go about trying to achieve things I guess that's kind of why I like the second slide better just because I don't know I mean you've got the R60 and 50 and 35 if you want to look at that on both slides yeah maybe you can I'll leave a tip to Richard maybe you can just talk about how you use the building and how you build the building so I said I was going to combine them but they are separate messages but I think you could add another line on this slide for how we live in the building that maybe is a thing that goes under both of the renovation and new construction but I just didn't want to lose that that's one of the differences yeah I was going to echo the point of I think Richard you know what we're trying to get after and I guess I don't care honestly if you lean more to the second slide and modify some of the language put in new text what I would suggest again though is throw the previous slide into the back of the deck again so if you start getting more questions about net zero and different approaches that would allow you if you needed to you could extrapolate on Rudy's point as well as also then say well this is the kind of things that it means so you have it there as backup to for the point that it's making so it makes this a resource one and then change language to the other one and language rather now I think we're up to procurement it's just a lot of legal exercises just to know option A for 465 you know we just want to keep reminding people that all the numbers that we're talking about in detail are for 465 students but pre-k to 6 right I think that would add the pre-k to 6 because a k to 6 is a different space than a pre-k to 6 that thing has to be 465 pre-k to 6 so what do you want to add that so it says option A reduces option A to 57 million and then maybe in parentheses 465 pre-k to 6 just to remind them you know that the number it would reduce it for no matter how big the enrollment is but that 57 million refers to that size it's properly legal yeah I mean we'll start now it seems like this slide might be nice to be put right after that slide where the costs are correct you know so that you're showing that slide and you're saying there's cn and there's jc and then this next slide is like this explains the difference but I'm not sure, I haven't gone back so I'll see what's great after that slide because the reason why there's a different slide it really isn't actually it goes to net zero yeah so it does sort of finish a thought yeah that's just what it seems like so does this diagram should proceed this one, this chart that has two columns under A cn and jc and they have a percent difference so that makes more sense alright alright alright yeah that's fine excessive points are the right ones then you want to put the incentive points before this one points could come before this one okay it's like discrepancies between the gc cost given on a different chart like this one says 57 million the estimated expected reimbursement says a federal project cost under A gc is going to be 59.1 million and I think there's another chart that says 56.8 million yeah the estimated expected reimbursement so there should be a number there should be a record style I looked at this and I'm trying to think of what because I was going to say it to you you corrected it to a 59 number also the option A says 65.6 and the 66.6 doesn't show anywhere else I don't think we should try to figure out what the correct number is we just told Richard say let's go through one last time here's where it is I circled it the part at the bottom it's the hrex system that's 5 versus 6 so that changes it so that's our case analysis all of that stuff we looked at hx5 it's a higher price than that bottom row of the enormous table isn't that just going to confuse people there is the potential for it well except that we talked so much about that initial comparison we did was all around the 6 even though it wasn't loved if Richard can put it in context whether it's written or verbal I think we can do our best to avoid confusion but there's part of this these are all big numbers and there's many of them it's going to be impossible to not have some people drift up on the numbers so I'm a little at a loss it's not making perfect the difference between 57, 59 and 60 variants on our cost reconciliation is within 5 you know it's and it reinforces that this is a piece of the money yes these numbers should be taken better than 10% I want people to go home with numbers in their head that are consistent that are correct numbers I'm thinking that this is too much yes the additional charts with the different I think the risk this goes back to the question we had earlier that I keep mentioning about audience and what are their expectations and it's interesting to me because there's some some things we can get into here around sort of the what did you learn about the building in the site I wouldn't be surprised if some people force you to go through again what does it mean to have a wet site and how do you fix it oh sure that's been a soft ball in town for years there's really a lot of interest in that scenario how do you translate it practically and then I think there's interest in what are the components of change what are the variables that can make a real difference but I think what Maria said a moment ago what Maria and Heather both said a moment ago that when you get down to parsing numbers that move between 57 and 59 there's two issues one the question about whether there's the precision you're getting people into in that public setting is not the point of the presentation and it's just going to lose people and then also similarly whether at some point people's heads are going to explode and they're not going to even remember the question they meant to ask because they feel like they're drowning in numbers and spreadsheets I think it's really, I mean based on the conversations I've heard around town and in committees I think what you're about to talk about with the cost is important because there are a number of committees in town this is exactly what they're going to be talking about with people, projects in town and what does it mean and people asked about what are the reimbursement what are the incentives for green building so I think you have to do it just orient people to the variability I agree, I agree with that what I meant was if we're having a discussion about why in numbers 57 or 59 million in a feasibility study we've missed the entire point of the conversation that's the point I'm making I'm not saying you can't have a relevant question about it but I think the issue is better to go through the fact that there are variables that can affect the pricing up and down they exist for a variety of reasons I mean you can get into specifics and then you get into reimbursement and other things we can talk about I agree I really need to bring it down to a number that they will remember that's the number they're going to remember rather than say that there are variations but I don't want to confuse you and there are people in the community who are probably going to be wondering what grade fuel oil we're going to be using oh absolutely yes and that's too early to even discuss you know we don't know where we are with like a press release but I think we do sort of a one-liner about costs and that I don't know if that's picking out the very tippy top number of any of these things we've seen and the very lowest number and we say that's the range but I think in this presentation we have to like at some point say this is the huge you know the tippy top number we got was this but you know we don't think necessarily that it's it's a range and I just think we need to orient people and then all these following numbers are sort of an analysis of where you could land in there but I do think we do need a one-liner in here that talks about costs and I don't know if that and also then that gets translated into costing embers because I think those are the two big headlines that's true yes what does it cause and what does it cost us I have a suggestion I usually tell my students about significant digits like what's your precision right we have 55.3 is it significantly different from 55 because we know there's uncertainties I think when you put numbers like 63.1 is telling them like very certain 63.1 and not 63 and 63.2 right that's the significant digits we don't here that we don't put the plus or minus that 5% reconciliation so if you change these numbers to integers like 63 instead of 63.1 sense and message that the viability is in there that's the last number that you put is your significant digit and your uncertainty when I see for me if I see 55.3 that's me that I know the numbers within that decimal and we know that that's not true so one suggestion I have is I would say to round up the numbers to the million and so that because that gives like a sense of the precision that we have and uncertainty that we have because if not since the message that we are much better in our uncertainty than what we really are I can't round up I'm okay with the round it's funny actually I don't disagree with that I was actually just looking at you and thinking did we just create so much more reasonable request because I think it actually is a reasonable thing to round them off in a way that makes it look more approximate than we've countered every screw in the building if nothing else I think it's worth saying to you that if that helps you rethink the things I think you're already kind of mulling over in your head as a way to because a couple of months ago you said I want people to remember a number I actually tend to agree more with Heather that I want people to actually remember a range is the hardest thing in our business to do but yeah my other comment was for example these two slides slide 32 and 33 one is the estimated effective reimbursement between U.S. 50 and 30 I think it would be a much more solid message if you combine the two the reimbursements are the same except in option E the only number I could find that is different is in the incentive point one is 6 and the other one is 6.3 I don't know if that's a mistake or that's true all the other numbers on the top part is the same if you have UI 50, UI 30 top and bottom and you can compare the numbers in one I think it has a better message that on one slide I show you 15 the other ones I show you 30 or by the way I cannot remember two others so which slide do you want to combine 32 and 33 32 and 33 yes so I have 50 and 30 because the top part I only show one number that is different that I would not show not no actually all the numbers are the same except that in UI 30 you don't have option F all the numbers are the same so you're just saying keep this and add one section one of them is UI 50 I think that makes a lot of sense and that's really true that the reimbursement rates don't change whether we're targeting it or not because we already have we already have so then you will have the budget cost for UI 50 the budget cost for UI 30 is for both of them and you can compare you have a summary what does it mean to go to UI 50 and what does it mean to go to UI 50 does that make sense people want to talk about that I mean this is basically to say that different teams have different reimbursement rates but whether our start number is UI 30 or 50 it's a way to reinforce again I think there's actually a problem keeping them separate because it makes it makes one assume that is the same can I make up on this one or two less can you make the the grouping of CN and GC to note that both A and somehow yeah we can do that highlight it's just to do something visual to note that these are both A this is what you get for GC versus CN yeah I can help down here you would think so so this was just in red are just corrections like option E are we on the same slide yeah we are option E is actually that's an UI 50 building and the number is 59.1 for that particular option A the same number change it was shown out here you wrote that same number change earlier yeah you made the same correction in two places okay and I just thought that we needed something to talk about the fact that we spent the summer doing comfort insulation we need a slide for that or just talk about it it was mostly Bogey and my opponent talking to each other what was trying to fall along yeah I think yeah I think maybe just to have this maybe even just for something visual that little summary what do we call it the balance, not the balance change you know I'm not sure if I want to surface that in the PowerPoint I almost would say maybe just be prepared to talk about the fact yeah yeah I'm prepared to talk about it but I don't think there's a lot of virtue in showing that I honestly think that for the people if somebody wants to ask a question about it great but I would be absolutely astonished if anyone said I'm really upset you didn't talk about the dynamics or components of the cost reconciliation process at the end of the report I think people just need to know the cost reconciliation you can say that yeah but you can say that with the next slide yeah I will say I mean I'm even saying you should say that but we aren't told we aren't these other ones are which UI they are and whether they are and whether they are pre-case and which great fan they are because also it's different we don't know this one so you want me to indicate what? because we are comparing cost per square foot right and then what we don't know if these other ones are next year we want 50 or 30 maybe that's too much information for the other before Wednesday yeah I won't be able to find out but I think well it's fair to say none of these are next year built so that would be maybe put them in another color not next year I think the point here is your eyes are drawn through the yellow and the point is we're benchmarking we want to see how did we do in construction cost per square foot compared to comparable buildings and the answer is pretty good but if you want to say why is it a little bit higher it's because it's net zero you get more for that so I think that's the point and that's why I was just like should we put the EUI 50 which would be comparable to what they have there the EUI 50 HVAC 6 which gives a cost per square foot of those that's why I was suggesting this so that people can look at it and not look at that and say well that just proves that you're high that's that's what I was trying to figure out Richard what do you think well I agree, I mean this seems high but when you realize that you've placed the burden of net zero on this project that's the reason or the benefit but forgive me I'm really asking what you think of the comment I'm talking about the slide I'm focused on getting this presentation done so I mean in terms of what we're seeing on the page it makes sense you think it needs to be edited to visually represent some of what you're saying well I think the question does come up in public presentations are we building an expensive building how do we compare relative to what other people are doing so this kind of slide is helpful but you're not overspending but the number is high and this is net zero and it has to be graphically in the information to remind the people that the other side is net zero and we are do you think that's useful to put in I think it is useful even if I put an asterisk on our number and a footnote that says yeah but not a really tiny one it should be something people can read I think actually reasonably reasonably speaking folks could look at this and say are these literally like animal buildings and I think the fact that it's net zero means the answer is no they're not really like animal you can definitely call it a benefit as opposed to a burden but it's still true do we know for a fact that none of these are net zero I yeah I would concur with that I swear I recently only very recently read something that said there was the first in Cambridge and it's not on this list yeah so that means you can say you can say yes until somebody proves you yeah you are not you are convinced go find this thing I can think we should say these are not these are Richard you hope sorry I know we're trying to get out of here but we say at the beginning that the two questions we were addressing is the site built on and what are the options and I feel like the question of the visibility of the site gets mentioned are you going to talk about that when you put the flood plain slide up and the fact that the various things that you presented in the public a few months ago I thought were very good that look there's a high water table there's just an app but these are all addressable by engineering methods and the site is in fact built on yeah yeah I need to remind people about that previous question that it will be I will be reminded that when I have the flood plain map I will say that the site is not a swamp which is what some people have and we're not in the flood plain my suggestion bring the previous presentation at the back because you might have information there that might pass well I can't bring it as is because it's probably not one of the figures in it so we through it but some of this all of this other information that from the previous presentation some people might not have been there so having that harm because it might be people out of this one I don't know why I'm skipping yours I think you're going to say this you had a slide that talked about methods of addressing site conditions I need some of the report yeah is it I it's certainly in the report I'm trying to remember the slide I'm just well it may not be a slide but I mean I guess to I would sort of reinforce the point that was made that again you've got it in my opinion you need to accept that people are at varying degrees of being up to speed and the fact that there has been a large number of people who've said the site should never be built on again and they're not just saying because it might cost a little more money they're saying it just shouldn't because it's gosh it's a swamp and so if you have good information which I mean we do we have good information that can address that question talk about the fact that you don't need to do you know pilings in it and that there are there are other I mean you don't have to do it throw another slide into the presentation but you ought to have something available so that when the subject comes up you can go to something and talk in more detail about it because you can almost predict that it will come up so I have to say that I actually think there should be a slide that answers that question like it just one slide and we're it's all that we said but I do think there should be a slide because when you start the presentation with and this is what Rudy's point was is the site buildable and we pretty much just go straight into what are the options you know and well he said he was going to add those left plain ones is that enough if you need something? no I think just that one but then talk through it I guess the more I'm thinking about what Rudy and Rudy just said I'll send here's the problem there's so many people in town who've had questions and what doesn't matter if people don't have all of the information or whatever the reality is if you jump and you saw a little bit of this in one of the community presentations where you got a bunch of questions about the site after the afterwards when you get into questions is it gives people the mistaken impression if you go state to yes it's buildable let's talk about the options how do you think live about the question of whether the site's buildable which you're not trying to pick and you have wonderful answers for what we've learned about the site how one could approach ensuring that future building has good moisture barriers and stuff like that so I think it's important to address it what about page 87 there's a table on page 87 that talks about yeah that's what no the one that you have there is the one about the cost of the UI I think this isn't quite addressed in there that you gave me a conversation because of the site installation well that was something that definitely came up in one of our two events and I think I grew there and I think these comments are going to come up and as long as Rich is ready to tackle them as questions we're never going to be able to get every slide in this thing and I think this is after tonight a pretty good place to be we've unfortunately given you a little bit of work but I think you should I think you should go back and think about the question think about it for a second and think about the question that we raised and either it's going to be useful to have I guess what you can do is you can have the floodplain slide but then my point is your script could include talking through some of the points about answering the buildability and what that means just so that you're prepared up front for that because I'm actually also the more I'm thinking about we have been at this too long after two years I'm starting to lose the thread that if you go 30 feet that way you run into people who if they've heard anything about this site they've heard that it was built on an old swamp and they don't have any good information about it so the idea that we wouldn't talk about that directly up front makes no sense at all yeah exactly what else do we have to do then well we can be effectively done I just want to make sure everyone's done here on this topic is there a good place to put that one liner about here's the tippy top, here's the bottom I don't want to have it on the first slide like because I just be thoughtful about where is you so we have a slide very early on that says is this site buildable somehow maybe the concluding slide is is this site buildable yes I think we've demonstrated how do we go about it we've seen a lot of variations the range is anywhere from this and all our members in here are in there yeah it's the basic tell them where you're going to tell them tell them where you told them tell them where you told them slide one more not about the slide show, back into the report the community outreach outline is still not in the report you tagged it I've liked that already but I don't know if that made it into this edition but I did not make it into that edition there's some other changes that I didn't make so in section 7 there's a list of meetings but there I also provided emailed the which is on if you need me to send it again let me know seven minutes from no there's a document that outlines the message by which the committee communicated with the community so that we have that we had press releases that we held community forums an internal document that laid out their community send it to me again a place to put it probably in the headliners section Allison, thanks for everything thank you every night I didn't do nearly as much work as most people on the table and I really appreciated it if you're getting up and walking out yeah I know so thank you for acknowledging that and thanks Maria we still have forums so we're still okay but you're doing the minutes can we say that we did the same thing we did last time that you will yes I kind of left that as a standing that's the way I've taken okay I have a question yeah so Richard are we first of all are we done with the presentation I think so this draft does or doesn't have all the stuff that I sent the stuff that all the I had sent annotated like I did the presentation the report my understanding was that it was okay I just I didn't look for everything but I definitely just saw one thing that I just wanted I'll double check I'll look through before I go I will look through and make sure and I want to just bring up that most of everything I was doing was labeling it was just like this is UI 30 this is you know there was one sentence though that I really feel like I should and that was in geotechnical because you reminded me when you said the high water table there's just a scientific thing that makes me crazy because in the description it said that the water was seen at between 1 and 7 feet below surface and that's all the report there but that's not a simple water table and I think the point that I made it added a sentence that said this does not represent us these lines do not represent a simple water table but represent the heterogeneous soils that exist on the site such that there are areas where there's going to be perched water and so right so I just want to I want people to say well water table that boom because you can't have a water table that varies by 6 to 7 feet vertically over a couple hundred feet distance that's not a water table so do you guys want me to read that line because I want everybody to be comfortable with it or sure I do want you to read that I have a comment about labeling I think to emphasize pre-k through 6 465 pre-k through 6 throughout whenever it says 465 it should be pre-k through 6 attached to it and buried in the text it says ok 465 space for pre-k through 6 is not the same as 465 k through 6 but not everybody is going to read that particular line so whenever we are labeling things I think it should be if you put in the numbers it should be also the great spot I also mean that I don't have useful ideas to do under that just a little bit of timing there and there's also in the explanation is sort of like the pre-k should be more generous than what would be required for k through 6 so a population of 465 could be accommodated a population of 465 k through 6 could be accommodated in these schemes I believe was sort of the language used in the report too so I mean I don't know that it invalidates a 465 number by that misconception it's what I'm saying is the cost of a 465 pre-k through 6 is not the same as the cost of a 465 pre-k through 6 class that's the question do we consider I'm obviously skipping a group do we consider a 465 k6 then why do we need to if we've established that we're looking at a 465 pre-k6 and we've saved more than once in the report why do we have to save that every time when we've never proposed in the report a k through 6 because most times when you talk about this you're talking about 465 students and that's the number we know that 465 pre-k through 6 is a different space summary than a 465 k through 6 students we know because we've been here for years somebody that you've told is a 465 students it's a different space a different area than a 465 pre-k so I guess it might be if we in fact only say it is a 465 pre-k through 6 once or twice in the entire report then I think it should be said more than once or twice if we say it more than that then I don't think we need to say it every time when we never present a 465 k through 6 especially at this late date with you guys trying to finalize the report if that's a trivial change for you Richard then I have no objection to it but I don't really feel very strongly about it I think it's a big effort to go through the whole thing final service it's not that easy at least on the figures it's not that easy super hard so in geotech section 4.5 page 87 my addition but in the very beginning this is the intro geotech section 4.5 this is in the narrative not necessarily in the this is in 8.7 of this thing section 4.5 so not the introduction it's where we talk about all of geotech stuff not the report itself is in the appendix this is the discussion my recommendation is in groundwater depth over such a small distance 6 foot difference in a few hundred feet does not represent a simple water table but rather suggests the presence of heterogeneous soils with varying drainage capabilities it explains that why at one place did you have this bucket of water and why is it 1 foot down here any hydrogeologist is going to look at that and say they don't know what a water table is that's the water table so I just wanted to make it clear that the salient point is when you build there you're going to have to account for the fact that this area literally is going to be a little bit different from that area over there on that same site not because you've got a pitch like this but because there's different soils and it drains differently here that's why the water is at a different depth from the surface sorry it's just a science geek thing so what language should you want to insert the wide variations in groundwater depth that were such a small distance 6 foot difference in height in a few hundred feet does not represent a simple water table but rather suggests the presence of heterogeneous soils with varying drainage capabilities that's not in there but that's what I wanted to put that there to explain why it varies by 6 feet I think it's a logical question Richard would be do you agree with that sentence or would you modify it this entire point is it's actually your report so you actually have to say something you agree with I would have what is it carefully and understand it and then I will insert it I would feel more comfortable if the geotech report said something like that and we were just basically the geotech report had more involved so they had the report of the water depth but the additional language is put in this section based upon conversations with the geotech so why don't I have a problem can you send me the text calling them up and say and he might be able to express it in a way that I'm trying to get it in terms that general public can see my position is I'm not against modifying or adding language but I want to make sure that you and your geotech can solve them I mean in other words we're not going to see her and approve a text or drop into the dam report you're actually going to go back and talk to your colleagues or experts in this and then work up what would make sense to the library between a water table that's what I would do send me the text or another thing because I think these orange tabs are your changes so there's a changer that I would like to see if we can maybe modify the modification so this is where we're talking about of all things pre-k so there's a little if this is in section 2 educational program page 10 and Heather had added this study identified the space needs of a typical pre-k program and did not meet with district staff to determine the feasibility of expanding Amherst preschool program to two locations or to determine the specific need of Amherst program that serves as both children with special education needs and general education needs in integrated settings and I'm just wondering if we could simplify that just to really say this study identified the space needs of a typical pre-k program to further study of Amherst's needs I think that I mean it's there's a lot that we didn't do but that just it seems like too much I think it's just to say we just did it for a typical pre-k why isn't Amherst typical pre-k that's well we don't know what we are compared to other folks on the district website but we don't know how if Amherst is different in pre-k needs from other programs it's just something that we didn't tackle right we just said we want to look at what it would do to have pre-k let's say 15 the recommendations were 15 for class it was just we just say this just looks at actually we did have some there are some extra classrooms for pre-k the point is we didn't I actually wanted to ask Heather I'm hearing your critique of Heather's comments I actually feel like to understand this better what were you trying to say that we developed an educational program that was based on the previous project which didn't include any pre-k so that was a fairly well vetted document when it comes to pre-k and so I think your summary of saying that the educational program was developed that this committee really didn't do that level of investigation that was done for the k through 6 and that the pre-k that level of scrutiny wasn't provided and I think I think if you feel really strongly just to say that on the other hand I think it's important to provide opportunities to educate the public about what is unique and special about our district and this would be a way to do that and be thought provoking about the kinds of questions we need to ask when we do endeavor to understand the needs of I think that would be great to do but I think in this context or I think it's opening up a discussion where we don't really we haven't we haven't discussed it here we really didn't go there as a committee and so exactly what the statement says is that we didn't explore these things but I think we can make that statement about a lot of different and I'm just uncomfortable adding that in at this point when we would have to go back to look at all the discussions we had and the notes on all that I think it would be just fair to say we based it on we added 45 pre-K slots and I'm a typical pre-K, I would be fine with doing that but to make statements that well Amherst is different from other pre-K programs I can't say that, I don't know that I haven't looked at it Isn't there a way of splitting in my eyes because if you only go down to you know the study identify the spaces of a typical pre-K program that's almost so concise that it loses the point that unlike other aspects of the educational program for K6 there are no specific or detailed program for Amherst was developed for this in our space I'd have to look at the space summary to know if we I know we modified the living hell out of our special needs space on this building based on Amherst's specific program Right, so if the space summary has what we did, I mean like I said literally we would have to go back and figure out what did we do but I know you did not meet with the pre-K director for example you met with the principal or four-bedder that kind of stuff didn't happen I know when we talked with C-pad pre-K was not part of that discussion but I don't know what Mike did I don't know what discussions he had I just think that I don't know how much Mike did and I know that Mike vetted the space summary for pre-K and for K-6 the point is we already know K-6 was modified heavily customized to Amherst we've talked about that a million times we already know that so the question then that you're raising is you don't know that the pre-K was more or less off the shelf and that it was not customized to Amherst particular I'm saying you don't know that Does Richard know that since you wrote the report? What I expect is the document that was verified by Mike and I don't know what he used Well the Edd report doesn't even mention pre-K Anywhere in it Well if it doesn't mention pre-K anywhere in it then it suggests that Mike didn't customize pre-K I mean what Maria was saying he might have customized some of the space summary stuff I don't know I did I think he did participate in the summary of spaces Yeah we asked him to I did But what resources he used and whether he did it solo I think this statement makes too much of an opinion It's a statement Read it again Okay so for pre-K we've got in the space summary speech for pre-K, OTPT for pre-K behavioral, analyst for pre-K RTI I mean we've got those in OTPT So I mean I think that there was work that was done I mean this proposed space summary indicates to me and this is something that Mike went through and said yes this is I agree with this so it suggests to me that he did take into account the amourst so I just don't know that speaking exactly I'm wanting to recognize Heather The part that is very concerning to CPEC is that dividing our current integrated preschool program onto two locations could be a big shift in what kind of services and how effectively we can deliver that to our preschool students and that was not something that was fully vetted and was out of the purview of this committee and saying that it goes back to like the can we versus should we I think it was perfectly appropriate for this committee to answer the question of can we I just wanted to be recognized that we didn't delve into the should we when it comes to dividing up a very successful integrated program into something that we may not be able to deliver integrated program onto sites but I see so I think that that is I am fine with you having that opinion I'm fine with you expressing that opinion I am having a problem with that opinion expressed in the context of this report because what we were tasked to do was to look at Pre-K through 6 at the Fort Riverside at a variety of enrollments whether it whether anything that we did could be done or should be done the should be is not our job the could be was and that's what we did and I think that we took we asked the superintendent gave us information on the space summary upon which this is based and all those other questions are for a setting that is not our final report that's what I'm saying I don't think it belongs in the final report well we relied on the superintendent as the lead educator to draft the aspects to review the space summary he gave it his blessing as an architect I'm not going to comment on that I don't know if the committee wants to add to that I think that I think that I don't actually know why I mean I think there could have been even a footnote in there it doesn't even need to be a certain text that simply says that this educational program or whatever it is space program creates options or scenarios for Pre-K but no attempt in the course of doing that scenario planning no consideration was made as to potential impact on current programming as delivered I think that's obviously true and I think if somebody was going through this and they wanted to have the comfort that it wasn't as if there was any there weren't missing any conversations that occurred I don't see how it hurts anyone in a footnote I don't understand what that would have to be singled out for any of this I mean there were a lot of decisions that Mike made and a lot of recommendations that he agreed with or didn't agree with as he was advising on the space summary right so the only reason I'm saying it is because if somebody who's been active in CPAC is telling me that CPAC is really concerned that there could be a programmatic changes to preschool and they're worried that this could create an intent impression but that's occurring seeing the truth which is that in fact no programmatic plans have been developed along these lines doesn't harm anyone it doesn't harm anything at all I mean I would actually extend that by saying the fact that Ruby thinks that the bylaw shouldn't include EUI 50 that into the text and what he's essentially is setting up a future fight that's going to occur with the town council over what the meaning of the net zero bylaw is his argument is perfectly I don't think we said in the text you shouldn't do the EUI 30 we never no no we said members of the committee we said members of the committee expressed concern that EUI 50 does not conform with the town bylaw so we actually included in the text members of the committee expressing their opinion on a variation in the reports actually there's a precedent to doing that in this case we're talking about a footnote I don't have an objection to your approach I think it splits the difference that's just my opinion so you can pay different scenarios in the ed program for another project and I'm not sure what the next project might be it might be pre-k35 project for example if 6th grade goes elsewhere that changes a lot of things so by the same token if the school committee chooses to handle a pre-k program in a different way that changes the program in the square footage the program in the square footage was some understanding of what you want we're not the educators we need to tell us as the educators what the educators want that's been defined Heather is saying that this spec didn't fully address some concerns or we didn't address the number of concerns I'm looking to the committee on how to respond I don't feel strongly about this I think it's an opportunity to educate the public about some of the considerations that we need to be thinking about as we move this project forward and letting the public know that what we have and what we value what makes a lot of our pre-school programming successful and unique is that it is an integrated pre-school program and it is the only game in town and it is the only game you know and I think it's worth mentioning that that we do have an integrated program and so I don't know you know maybe the district currently has you know maybe it starts out the district currently has a program that services both children with special education needs and general education needs an integrated setting at proper farm school and this study looked at including early program at Fort River that would serve but we don't 45 full time equivalent students I mean maybe maybe that's what we need to do I think that's because we don't talk about the fact that our pre-K program is integrated or special needs anywhere I mean we have some of the space summary stuff but we don't extrapolate about our pre-K I mean I think the program clearly the space summary indicates that this is an integrated program it has you know but it's not I'm falling down on my my duty here we're also running this past I apologize for this question because I'm out of the loop but the district is not actually considering any pre-K program changes based on anything we're doing right? in fact at one point the schools forgot that we were even including pre-K and then they just didn't blow up so I can understand that this might raise an eyebrow but how can we reassure people that nothing we're doing is going to affect the pre-K I strongly I strongly suggest never mind forgive me for saying this but the likelihood that somebody even reads any of these paragraphs is surpassingly low I would ask at this juncture maybe just set this aside I realize there's importance here we just take a vote that's one way to do it can I make an edit suggestion along your lines because you said it would be comfortable to say that this recurrent has an integrated education program we looked into a classic if you want pre-K that's what we did because we also didn't do a lot of things but in the report that's what it is is that reasonable? yeah I think if we you mentioned that the other one is integrated and this is what we did I think we do need to lay fears that there was I think if I may interject I hear what you're saying I think it's important that we lay those fears I'm not sure that we can do that purely by adding words in the text here I think maybe that needs to come from another place another setting whether that's questions that come out as part of the conversation comments from the school committee whatever it may be because I think it's deeply buried no matter what text we all would agree to and that it's not necessarily going to provide the reassurance that may be needed I don't mind adding the words integrated I would be supportive of that but at this point I think we should probably not try to write the text in depth and try to resolve the issue other ways outside of the board can we move on? I don't know what to do with the text I think what we're going to do is the only addition to the text would be to more fully describe the district currently has an early childhood education program that services both children with special needs and integrated settings after proc or foreign school further explain what is art and then don't add any of the rest assuming that the public understands that with the other things we're talking about what can be and that should be done that the specific difference is a splitting a program splitting our specific program we did not look at the feasibility of that just like we didn't look at the feasibility of continuing to have three elementary schools in our district so just forgive me if we want to make a change to focus back just on what you want the addition to bring the only addition to the current text as proposed is to further describe the program at Cropper Farm School to include that program as both children with special needs and general education needs in an integrated setting so it would not so I'm just saying that's the that's the edit there are how do people feel about raising hands on that's just your vote just for clear favor did you, is it written there? no we can check around that it's a bracketed portion of what we're keeping the bottom line that we looked at the space needs for pre-k because we were tasked with that we did not address the advisability of splitting the program we didn't address anything else but the point is let's focus the point is that's the suggested edit you were asking for a vote all those in favor of the edit please raise your hand and support each other carries? then we're done with this let us move on and acknowledge that all things cannot be solved are there any other edits to the report? maybe close the report yes yes don't wait too long well I also don't want to get something else okay so that's the do you want a formal vote? no we've really had a formal vote in a sense we accepted the bulk of the text long long long ago the next thing I have on my agenda is that what I call it was a public announcement given the timing of everything it seemed infeasible and this is something as chair that I kind of took a little bit of maybe too much license on but it seemed infeasible to publish an article or get them to actually put in the other term a letter to the editor a letter to the editor or something can help you yeah so with a little help from the subcommittee that was tasked last time a small app has been placed I used my own personal money to do this mostly because I wasn't sure that we had time to get reimbursed or at least to get in why in time to get something in the paper for this Friday I gave my credit card to someone but I will read it as follows it is not a press release it is not deep but I think it sends people to the right places to get deeper information and it reads as follows Fort River School Building Committee will present its final report to the Hammer School Committee and the Hammerstown Council on September 17, 2019 at 6 p.m. in the town room Hammerstown Hall please join the designer to DSPP as they provide information on a variety of options explored from multiple enrollments using a range of new construction versus addition and renovation and various approaches to sustainable cost information and strategies for complying with the town's town of Hammerstown net zero bylaw will also be discussed full report will be available at I'm not going to read the link and at the Jones Library after September 17 so it gets something out there it's not a fancy way to end it as a public comment but it felt like a decent compromise and I will take my punishment if folks don't like it it's already submitted, right? it is submitted, I cannot have them publicated at least we don't have to debate this right now unless folks don't want it to go out as the chairman for the expenditure on the end second that is an excellent question that I'm going to have room by the control okay I got an idea, why don't we vote that if it's illegal to reimburse them we can do so and if it's not then do anything illegal it may be simple I probably didn't need to say that I probably didn't need to say that I will talk to Ms. Aldrich and it may be simple to ask the Gazette to add this to our invoice but I'll ask her about Aldrich's I'm sure I could get them to redirect it I was just worried about using the time most have been moved and seconded all in favor that was the last real thing I have on the agenda so I'm more than willing to entertain an adjournment all in favor all in favor off we go