I'd like to call [Music] Good evening. I'd like to call the um October 14th Kllum School Building Committee to order. We have people on Zoom so we will do a roll call. Um Pat here.
Sean come back to Sean. John Chris here. Kirk here. Ed is not here. Um unless he is. Craig here and Nancy
here. Perfect. Thank you everyone. Um quick review of our agenda. We will start with public comment. We are going to reorganize the um chair and vice chair positions of the committee. We'll have liaison reports. Um um colleers
will do a financial review and a schedule review. LBA will talk about our exterior materials. We will approve the prior meeting minutes and then talk about future agenda items.
So, um, we'll start with public comment. And I don't think I recognize I don't think we have any guests. Anything online? No, nobody's online. Looks like no public members, just all committee members,
right? Good. We like boring meetings. Just um Okay, we will go to um reorganization. So, I'm going to hand it off to Matt. Thank you. I get to gabble and everything. I get the gabble, right?
Treat it nicely. Oh, thank you. Remember how to do this? So, yes. So, at this time, I'll open nominations for chair of the uh Kilum building committee. So, any nominations for chair?
Yeah, make a nomination to elect Carla Nazaro as chair. Any second? I will second that. Right. So we have a nomination of Carlo Nazar as chair. Could you accept that nomination, Carlo? Sure. Great. Any further nominations?
So at this time, I will take a motion to close nominations and then we can vote to make it official. So could I have a motion to close nominations for chair? Move to close the nomination for chair. Okay. Second. Great. So nominations are closed. Um I
guess we have to take over. Yeah, I guess we have to take the roll call. So, um, Nancy, yes. Pat, yes. Carla, yes. Chris, yes. And who's online? I'm sorry. Car. Kirk,
yes. Sean's here as well. Greg. Greg. Yes. Sean. Yes. John just stepped in the room. I'm here. Yes. You want to we were we were just closing nominations for chair
and the only nominee was Carla. So I was calling a roll call. Did you want to vote on that? Unless you want to jump in. Okay. Okay. So So the Did you vote to close nominations? Did you want to cast a vote on that,
John? Or Yes. All right. Yes. Yes. Okay. So nominations are closed. So, um I think maybe one more vote just to make it official to have Carla serve another Carla Nazara serve another term as chair. Um all in favor, I'll call the
role. So, Nancy, yes. Patrick, yes. Carla, yes. Chris, yes. John, yes. Hold on. My list again. Um Sean, yes. Greg, yes. Kirk.
And Kirk, yes. Okay, congratulations. So, I turn the gapple back over to KA for vice chair. Awesome. Thank you. And we will um open nominations for vice chair.
Nancy, nominate Pat. To nominate Pat. So, do you want to second that, Nancy? Yes. Okay. Seconded by Nancy. Any other nominations for vice chair?
Seeing none, um I don't think we have to close the vote, but we'll close a vote, right? Okay. So, this is to close the vote for nominations. Close the nominations for vice chair. Um Pat, yes. Sean, yes. John, yes. Chris, yes.
Kirk. Come back to Kirk. Um Greg, yes. Nancy, yes. And Carla and Kirk, yes. Thank you. Um and we will move to um vote for Pat for vice chair.
Um Pat, yes. Sean, yes. Sean, yes. Chris, yes. Kirk, I think that was a yes. I think that was a yes. Greg, yes. Nancy, yes. And Carla, yes.
Congratulations. Yay. Awesome. Thank you, everyone. um excited to ser serve another term. I bet you are. Okay, so we'll move to um liaison reports.
I um I have a couple of uh reports. Um so the geotech um we've completed the analysis of the findings of the test well and what we found is that our assumptions uh were right on the money.
So we had assumed 44 wells 800 foot wells and after testing and the analysis we need 44 wells. Um so that was a good guess or yeah it wasn't just a guess. Um also the
um we held the Butters meeting I can't remember the date. Um I believe we had six six of Butters attend representing three properties and um it was very
successful. I think that the property owners were all generally happy with what we talked about, which was we we shared what the condition would be like between the school and their property. Um the only controversial issue that
came up was the question of if there would be um if the city would be using the full right of way of Charles Street, which would be extending the not taking
um which ultimately the the town decided not to widen the we um right at this at this point right now that's where we're at. Yes. Thank you. Um that's September 25th was the day.
Thank you. It was it was a great meeting and everybody all the abutters left happy which is always a good a good sign. And the tree landscape architect lady was very tree landscape architecty like she knew
everything and anything about you know was it jade? Yeah, she is. Yeah, she like she is great. She's got listened to her for hours talk about trees which is in landscaping and and I think they're in good hands. Another good thing was that we kind of
took the temperature of where the butters stand on the tree removals because we're going to need to remove almost all the trees on the site and um the temperature was good. They were like these trees are not in good condition. They're going to fall in my house. Get
rid of them. Yeah. So that was good news. Yeah. But they I really feel like they felt heard by by you and Jade because when they were talking about their properties and what kind of um landscape
was going to go there, you know, they they had options. So, they were able to kind of voice what they were looking for and things like that. So, you guys did a great job as usual. Jane, you want to talk? Sure.
Thank you, Carl. Um, Madame Chair, my apologies. Um, so couple of things I wanted to talk to the committee about tonight. Um, the first is parking for um, features and um, construction staff.
We are working on a parking license with Christ the King Church which is almost an abuing property. It's just just there and they have a substantial parking. So our director of operations Katie Gabriella has begun those convers well
Carla worked on some of those conversations originally. um Katie has picked them up in a more official manner to work toward um a contract with um the church so that we can use that parking. Um we have um some pieces that we need
to negotiate out and um and like if we're going to be able to accommodate all I think we're initially we're talking about 150 spots up to 150 spots um at different times in the summertime we won't have teachers parking there. So they have indicated 150 might be a
little difficult to manage. So we really want to kind of work on some of those numbers. Um but we're they're great to work with. Absolutely fantastic to work with. We've been talking to Jim Fitzgerald there and he's fantastic. So uh we're it's now u the initial
conversations are with legal to kind of make sure that we do it in the right way and um we'll bring back more details to the to the board. But we they're looking for um a little bit more than $10 per
spot. Um so acquiring parking is a procurement process. Um this is a special uh type of um uh procurement because it's really the only one that will work. it. So there's some workaround for that um through 30B and
um so we'll make that declaration to DAM and so forth. But um they would prefer a license agreement versus a lease. Um so that that suits us because if we do a lease, it has to go to town meeting to approve the lease. So we could either do like a partial we could do like a license agreement initially if the
committee really wanted to pursue a lease and then go further. But our understanding from the church is they would prefer to use a license agreement. So that's what we're drafting now and that'll be under negotiation and um we believe that will come under
the thresholds for 30B for parking for the land acquisition uh law but it may go up because we need um a little more parking than we initially thought we would originally think 70 spots. We were
talking about 70 spots for staff. Yeah. And then with the construction it's going to go up. Um, but I think we're still under the threshold. Even if we're not, it's a special type of procurement. So, that's that's kind of where we are right now. We'll bring more details back at the November meeting hopefully with
something ready to be signed. We'll have it in your packet, but it might not be till December. We're looking that we won't need to start using parking on site at the earliest February, I think, at the very earliest. And that's just for, you know, any people that aren't on
staff to go on site because I'm not sure when we're not going to need parking on site and we can't use the parking on site anymore, but I don't think it's going to be February, but that's the earliest that we're trying to secure it for. So, um the parking the amount per
spot right now is $10 per spot, which is a deal um per month. So, you know, that's that's a great spot. Um I understand that they would like to see if we will sweeten that deal a little
bit a little bit better um number. So that's where we are right now. Um it will bring back a total cost to the board um after it goes through legal and we have a better sense and I will continue to work with the executive leadership team to refine this in with
the OPM as we go. So that's the first thing. Um, and then the second thing I wanted to talk about is a clerk. Um, staff, particularly Joe Huggin, who is on the call tonight, um,
are interested in hiring, uh, as a 1099 employee a clerk to help the facilities department manage the, uh, construction process on site. So, this is somebody who would be on site every single day because we are doing two major building
projects at the same time. um that are that are going at the same time. Um and because we are not hiring any new staff um permanent benefited staff um our facilities department is already understaffed um and so Joe and his
deputy um Kevin Kabuzi are just fantastic. We've all worked with them a lot, but we need to have um more on-site staff that report to the town. So we are looking for a clerk position. Um Mike and Justin have been gracious in um
helping us define what this will look like and we'll be bringing that to the MSBA for a conversation soon. Um we were going to have a conversation I think last week and the timing didn't work out for all of the members who needed to be there. So we're going to um have that
conversation in the future tomorrow. Tomorrow. I missed that email because I haven't checked email all day because I've been in meetings from 9:00 am to 5. So, and then now so uh great news. Thank you very much. I'm really So that's those are my updates to the board.
We the executive team keeps talking about these things and we want to make sure that we keep bringing things back to the committee as well even though some sometimes they take a long time to kind of sort through. How much is the position roughly over the course of the contract? So over
it's $70 an hour. Um initially it'll be part-time um to go over kind of design documents and then once construction comes it'll be um a full-time position. I think it roughs out to about $300,000 over the
life of the contract. That's three yearsish. Yeah. Okay. How does this position dovetail with the OPM's full-time inspector or whatever you have in on on
the job? So, that was some of the questions we we initially had and we met with Joe and Kevin and Jane and and and the team to understand that and let let them understand what we do. So, yes, we have a full-time clerk of the works, if you will, uh, or a site representative is
what we call them on site. Whenever the construction's happening, we'll have somebody on site. They'll be in the trailer. In addition, our project managers, such as Justin or our APM, will be there from time to time. So, we could have as many as one to three, four people in there on any given day, but
always at least the one. Um, we had that discussion with with Joe about the the position that they're looking for. So, this would not be um trying to duplicate duties we're doing. It's it's to supplement it to have the town's voice
heard to have the town support there. We typically on a project like this would have um you know, we'll have a weekly OAC meeting or architect contractor meeting. This person will attend those meetings. They will also be there to have provide input. When we're we're
getting into uh PCO review, proposed change order review. We as the OPM and and Lee's team as the design team will be taking the first stab at that. But this person will be able to understand what's going on and report back to this committee a little bit more succinct
about you know what's been happening and and it allows us to not have to have long meetings necessarily sitting here reviewing you know changes detailed changes things of that nature. So I think from that perspective that's what we're looking at. I I will let you know that um we have seen this done in other
districts. uh we're where Collier is doing it right now in April and they they they provide they they they actually hired an assistant uh a part-time assistant uh facilities director there because they didn't have a Kevin equivalent if you will and so they they hired so many uh you know on
staff that they're planning to keep on staff long term but it's it's very similar other than that it's very similar to what you're doing here and and it is pretty common especially in in towns and districts that have not only this project going on but in other projects and then capital uh
improvements and and all the different things that you guys are doing uh to maintain your your building fleet. No, you you get it and that that's um that's exactly right. Thank you for mentioning that it does happen in other towns. We're not unique, but we do have a a pretty lean operating structure here
and so we think that this will be an appropriate augmentation to staff. I I think one of the things that we had talked about too is I we can work on kind of I'll call it a work plan kind of projecting some hours out so that we can bring that back to the committee and they can kind of see what what we're
looking at long term. Uh and I I think uh once we get past the MSBA meeting which I think should be relatively quickly uh relatively simple uh meeting tomorrow um we'll be able to do that with you. Great. Thank you. Thank you James. Thank
you. Kirk, I don't mean to put you on the spot and it's okay if you don't have an answer. Any Do you have any thoughts on the finance um working group? Yeah. So, um unfortunately I wasn't able to get a meeting together before today,
but I emailed Justin some questions and um Justin, uh got back to me. It might be best if we just go over those couple of questions now. Um I uh the invoices and everything um it all seemed to be in order to me. I did have some questions
about the um the uh the amendment to the LBA contract uh for soil precaracterization. So Justin, I don't know if you want to just address some of my questions now or how you want to do that. I I think if as we go we we'll we'll
kind of cross all those items as we go through the financial report. Instead of jumping around, maybe we'll just start with the financial report and then as we get through those items, we can address address those questions. Yeah, that sounds fine. Great. I know you I know you're you've
got that um group going for um the Center for Active Living. So, make all your mistakes with that project and then you can correct it for us. That would be great. So, thank you. Thanks, Kirk. On both.
Kirk's on both. How do you know we've got one going for the other project? Because my husband's on it. Wonder as he saved a call for that I didn't have to call Pat. So that was our dinner conversation.
A quick quick lesson there. Mike's on that committee. He's on multiple committees. The reason he's on so many committees is because he didn't show up at a meeting. So So little words to the wise around there. If you choose not to show up at a meeting, you may volunteered for
something. That's why I came. That's why I came tonight. You weren't nominated. I should have been here. My wife's in hospital. She had her hip replaced today. Oh, um, it was it was the PCU or here.
And I couldn't think which which one's See how that shook out, huh? I was over here working on my English accent, but I couldn't get it. That's why I had to move the sorry you okay um any other liaison report?
Okay. Um we'll move on to the finance the financial review. All right. Um let me know if I'm speaking too loud and blowing everyone's hair back because I'm not really sure what what the volume is like in this room. can't remember how it sounds uh with people being remote, but just give
me a heads up if I'm talking too loud or too quietly. So, um project budget, obviously, we have no construction, no contractors on board yet, so that's still at zero. Uh we have our contingencies down below. Right now,
our cont our contingency uh is at five. Our soft cost contingency is at five. I'm sorry. This is our construction contingency is at 5 million still 5,76,69. And our soft cost contingency owner uh owner's contingency is at
1 2 million 1,257,726. So our project uh budget uh with our internal any any u project uh budget adjustments we only have one
uh this is in regards to the um amendment that uh LBA has put forward the one that Kirk has mentioned. There was there's two of them right now. Uh, one of them was covered by the budget that we have in place and this one is actually covered from um
other uh architectural basic services to cover the geotech uh amendment which is amendment 19 for the 113,000. So Justin on that one we're we're moving money from one line one architectural line to the other not using contingency
just right. So this is our commitments. These are So for uh amendment 19, maybe we'll we'll we'll come back to this because that's that's a little bit more of an in-depth conversation, but for uh uh LBA's amendment number 20, this is
for uh additional tree survey services that was requested by the um the tree warden uh during one of our um uh design uh meetings. Uh this is for $7,623.
And then we have another commitment. It's a small one for $140, but this is basically the remaining amount for uh cleaning uh complete cleaning codes um services with the um
modular uh refit fit ups. So right, thank you. The original amount was 3500 uh the original commitment, but after all said and done, they came back at uh $3640. So the 140 is just the remaining uh
commitment amount to offset that cost. Um or we're going to come back and review those individually later, Justin. Is that right? Or Yeah. Yeah. Just so we can keep going, get that other stuff out of the way.
This is our invoice tabs. We we have uh one invoice uh one invoice for GAP architects for $1,700. We have uh our our collers project leaders uh invoice for $30,252.
And then we have our LBA invoice broken down, but they total to $484 and uh $484,000 $745. Um, and then we have the two invoices below, which was the remaining invoices for complete cleaning co. Um, and I
didn't do the math, but that is $2740 in total. So, this is our cash flow. Um, right now we're we're in line with where we projected. Uh, we're a little under build. It's better shown in this graph
below. But ba basically when we do these reports, we don't uh consider um anything that has been officially approved in these reports. That's why we're a little underbuilt. That's why that red line is below the green. But once we factor in the values for the invoices from this um this meeting and
then uh I think we have some other invoices that almost made it to this meeting but will be in the next. Uh we'll we'll bring that red line right up in line with that green line pretty much. So, just one thing on that for on the invoices, what we've been showing every month, I'm going to scroll back up to
the invoices here for a second, is if if I zoom out here, you can see this is approval date right here, this column, and everything that's white is the things that we're voting on tonight. We haven't been putting a date there because they haven't been officially approved. But we would we've been talking about it not just on this job but on a few jobs that
when we're coming to this meeting if we put the date in there then those actually get added into the cash flow. So like our cash flow is artificially low by about a half a million dollars tonight because those are going to be approved tonight and then those immediately go in for this this duration. So I think going forward we're
going to leave those white but we're probably going to put today's date like the meeting date in there with the assumption that it's approved. If they're not approved obviously we'll we'll we'll redact that. we can correct it later, but that that'll just show you your cash flow a little more accurately, I think, if that if that works for everybody.
Yeah. As Mike was saying, our our spreadsheet, our cell Excel sheet that tracks everything, once you put the data in, it reflects in the cash flow, but until you do that, it doesn't. But we're going to start putting the data in.
Any uh any questions so far? All right. So, I think we have to approve the commitments before we approve the invoices because one of the invoices is reliant on a commitment. So, do we want to go back and talk about the commitments now and then we can move on to schedule after we go through the
financials? Sure. All right. Um, Mike, do you Do you want me to explain 19 or do you want to explain that 19? I can run through 19 if you want. Um, so I I think Justin already mentioned I'm going to kind of work from the bottom up here. Justin already mentioned $140.
That's just a a little bit of cleaning up that they the the complete cleaning they're doing the work on in the modules. They came in a little bit over the initial estimate and so we we've we're looking to make a new commitment for $140 there. Um the second one the 76
30 uh 23 um that is for the we have a surveying the trees but we didn't have the species of each type of tree identified and we've been asked to do that so that's to go out to do that I think uh when that initially came in it
was a little bit higher and we were able to work with Jenny and Lee and their team and make sure that we're getting everything that the town needs but not overspending on it and we were able to actually I think we're doing that that price 10 or 15% less than where we were initially thinking. So we are taking a
look at that and trying to make sure we have that. But um that is basically for the the balance to the surveying of the trees specifically the species type and also the the the like the condition are they a good tree or they a tree that's in failing health
things of that nature. So uh they're going to go out there and do that and that's a requirement of of the permitting process basically. Can can I can I say something about that? I I ask DPW or whoever it is, where does
it show in our zoning bylaws or town general bylaws that anything but street shade trees are under this requirement? Because it's only the street shade trees that trigger
any kind of public hearing. this if this were a developer that was working on this site, they could take all the trees down and nobody would be able to say something about it if it's not in conservation and if it's not in any other protected wetlands. So why now
does the town have to pay somebody to come in and tell us what these trees are so we can take them down? I I don't understand that requirement and I don't understand why We need a public hearing on trees that
are not street shade trees. I'm sure there are street shade trees that we're taking down that we're going to have to have a public hearing for. And I think the town has a pretty good idea of what those trees are because there is a record of them. So why are we identifying all the rest of the trees we
need to take down for this project and spending $7,600 of town taxpayer money doing that? I I just question where that requirement came from because I haven't ever seen that on any
of the projects that I've worked with. Does it have to do with um public property versus private? Why? What difference does it make? It's the state requires public shade trees which are defined as trees along a
public way. These are trees that are not along a public way. These are trees on the property and any other developer would be able to go in there and take these trees down if they're not sensitive to conservation. Is this happening on um No, because conservation let us not have
to do that. We are in conservation. Yeah, it's it's a different situation because everything is in is in the conservation within their control. Isn't so gave them a bunch of land you can offset to offset the tree taking debt. I
just it seems very odd to me that we are in this position. Did you say you asked DPW already that first part or you're we're asking you're asking? I'm asking if anybody knows why and I have not talked to DPW. I don't think there's anything in the general bylaw on it. It may be in the zoning bylaw. So I'd have to take a
close look at zoning on it. Are we not exempt from all of it anyway and good practices for us to do it? But in this instance, for us to save 8 grand to cut to acknowledge trees that we're cutting down anyway seems to NY's point kind of pointless.
I'm not familiar with any of it. We can generally exempt ourselves, but we don't because we don't feel that it's good practices. We're not in the trees down though anyway that it's the public shade trees. Those are the ones for sure that have to be looked at. And I don't
know how many were taken down. I can't remember on that plan. Probably all of them. So, there probably will be a public hearing for those particular trees, but we already know what those trees are. Yeah. Now, my Canifer knows every every street tree in town. Yeah, there's a record of them actually
and he has a record of every single one. Yeah, it's the trees. I don't know where I was in that meeting and I know he said we needed to identify this and at the time I was thinking why are we doing public land but I don't think so. I would think the the the rationale for
why you might do it is because you might want to look and if you have some really good healthy trees, you might want to be able to save those. You might want to direct the design to save those. But I I would say with a with our project, that's not really an option. Like it's
not like we can like if you were a developer building a bunch of houses, you can move a house a little bit to the left or a little bit to the right to save a tree or two and you might be able to do something like that. But with what we're doing, I don't think we really have it. So, I think it's a it's a good question. I think what I might recommend here, because we do want to try and keep
things moving maybe approving it contingent on us following back with the DPW and getting a confirmation from them of, you know, that it is required and if it's required, we'll do it. If it's not required, then we'll come back and report to you that we did that. I have no problem with the amount. It's a lot of work to go out there. It just
seems like it's foolish work that we don't need and I'm questioning the need for spending that money. Generally, correct me if I'm wrong. I think virtually every tree that we're going to do is coming down, right? Yeah. Um yeah, after after we shared a
preliminary plan with um Mike Hannerford, he um he was kind of taken aback. I don't think that he understood that we were planning to take down uh almost every tree. So after that initial meeting, we kind of went back and looked
at whether we might be able to save some trees by not regrading in some areas. Um, and I think uh just I'm just kind of speculating that this may come out of, you know, Mike Hannifer wears these two hats, right? He maintains these trees
like these are his these are town trees and then he has these tree hearings. We haven't pushed back on him to say why is this required. I think it's a great point and the I think Mike's proposal to to approve the feed and then have that conversation with Mike and kind of
revisit you know what is really required in terms of having a tree hearing and and and the other question is is the project required to replace the trees part of the tree hearing is that um you know you have to replace the same number of caliber inches of tree that are
removed or pay into a tree fund if you're not able to do that right and I didn't see any We're looking at are we is that the standard for every tree on the site or just the street trees and I don't see anything in our bylaws or in any general now if you were to go to Wayland or to Weston they or
Arlington even they do have that in the in the side setbacks of the property. There are very strong restrictions on them but not in we have not gotten there. The other thing that I'll just say to add to this is that we're not
being ostentatious, but we do have quite a few trees and bushes and landscaping features going back in. So, like it's not like we're clearcutting a a a site and then leaving it bare and barren. It's going to be properly done and and and beautiful and you're gonna if we
remove street trees, new street trees will be going back in and but we may not we may not have the required caliber inches that we took down, right? Because of what you're counting street trees, we'll have more than the caliber of any street tree that's going to go down. There are a lot
of trees going in on this site. But if you want to count every tree on Exactly. And that's where I'm I'm I'm thinking this is I don't think it's going in the right direction. But when when does this when is it critical that these trees be identified? It
doesn't seem to be a crit time critical item. Well, there are trees that will be removed some of which are street trees on Hil Street um if we do the early site package in January. I mean on within the site boundary within the site boundary. So, we're going to have a discussion in a little
bit on 113,000 and part of that is about the early package. So, the early package is done. Right now, we're tenatively looking at early package work getting going in January. So, we could be cutting trees in January. So, we need to have permits in place prior to that. And
this is right now potentially a requirement for the permitting. So, I think from that perspective, if it needs to be done, it probably needs to be done pretty soon. If it doesn't need to be done, then we can always push it off. And after the discussion tonight and and maybe a followup, if the early earth
work package isn't done, we'll have a little more flexibility with that. But we're that that's going to be a a teaser for going to come in a minute. Okay. So, who So, do we want Jenny to reach out? You guys I'll reach out. Okay.
I agree that the town's here. Talk to the town. Yes. Yes, we will. Nancy, thank you. So, do we want to take a vote on those two first and then I can talk about the 113 because that's probably a little bit longer discussion or
Sure. Yeah. I just don't want to forget those. Sure. Did you need a motion? Please go for it. You go for it. All right. I'll make a motion um to approve the amendment um the MS.
Let me see. Amendment MSA40-751 for $140 to complete cleaning company and to approve um LBA amendment 20 which is line 30-235
for $7,623 with caveat that that um is approved um contingent upon a discussion with the town um to determine if we actually need to spend that Is there a second?
Second. There's a second. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none. Um Pat, yes. Sean, yes. John, yes. Chris, yes. Kirk, yes. Greg, yes. Nancy,
yes. And Carla, yes. Thank you. Okay, Mike. So, then the next one here is 113,806. Um this is LBA amendment 19 and this is for soil testing. Um this initially
started off I think almost at a quarter of a million dollars and we've got it down to this value. I want to give you a little explanation of kind of where we were and how we got it to here and then have a little discussion on. So the when we first talked about the early package,
we talked about uh exporting approximately 40,000 yards of soil um based off of the the soil borings mostly focused on the building area, but we were also kind of looking at that whole I'm going to say right half of the page where the building would be where the um
the the bus driveway would be on the bottom half of the page where the um loading dock ramps and and driveways would be on the top half of the page. and we we did it as a an order of magnitude to just see how much sort was there and with 40,000 yards coming off
and 10,000 yards coming back on. Um I made the recommendation that we should consider an early package there to help keep us on schedule. Um big picture here our schedule and I can pull the schedule up and if anybody has questions but we're we're getting this next spring
basically awarded um around June the base contract. If we go for 18 months, then that gets us to December of the following year. 18 months is a good time for a t typical project of this size. But when we add geothermal wells in, we thought we might need a little bit more
time. And we thought if we could do the early package, we save a little time on the earth work. We take a little bit more time on the geothermal. The 18 months is still, you know, is is potentially the right um duration. The reason why we're focused on that is if we can get the building complete by
December, uh it allows us to target a February move in for the students. Um that six weeks gives us a couple of things. It gives us a little cushion if something unforeseen were to come up that we're not immediately impacting the move. It also gives us a chance to move furniture in, to train staff, to work
through punch list before this the staff and the students get into the building and just be ready so that we're we're moving we're confident we're moving into the building that's ready to be there. Um the the benefit of getting the students u moved in is a it it gets them out of the building they're in right now
and into the new building as soon as we can, but it also allows us from a construction standpoint to start removing that old building. And if we can do that in the in the wintertime and start working in that the plan would be to remove that building, get all the earth work done for the parking lots and
the and the fields and things like that and basically be closed by the fall of that year. If we waited and said say move the students at the end of the school year and and you know after they they they exit, we're starting demolition then and our our construction
of the new fields and the new parking lots and everything are going to run into that winter time period and it's going to carry through the winter in into the next spring. So by losing that 6 months, we we we have two or three months worth of work that kind of is
paused over the winter and it just extends out the you know the the the impact to everybody. So that's what we're big picture that's why we thought the early package would be good. But um where we're at right now is we're looking at 15,000 yards instead of
40,000 because what we've done is we've gone back and we've limited the area from basically the entire right side of that that site if you will to just the building footprint. And what we did is we actually asked the design team in their estimator to go back review the
building footprint, expand the footprint to buy about five feet in both directions so that we have enough space for for footings and formwork and things like that and then do your one to one slope up from there. So that's what we did and the 40,000 went to 15,000
and that's because we only need to remove that crummy dirt because of bearing because it's not the right bearing. soil we need to bring in fill so we don't have to do it other places other than under the building under the exactly and and then to take
it further I think uh we we had some discussions with Pat and Pat had mentioned um I think John you may have have uh given uh some information about an old pond potentially out there so we started looking even more closely at the at the geotechnical information that we
have and what we're noticing is that it's called fill material I'll say on the southern half of the site But but it's just general fill material over existing soils. But on the northern half of the site, we have several locations where we have
normal or natural occurring soils and then we have either subs soil or or top soil and then we have fail and then we have the exist the real top soil the actual top soil and that top soil and subs soil is what that's the problem
soil. So, we've had some discussions with the with the geotech um and some of the fill that we've actually we've actually done some analysis on it. Some of it actually meets structural grade uh fill as it is even even just out there
and the the fill that doesn't meet structural grade is very close to it. So, it's certainly good for an ordinary borrow on the lower side. So then we started having discussions about do we try to save some of that material, you know, maybe it just has to be
recompacted or or compacted in place. And where that's going is maybe that 15,000 yards isn't 15,000 yards. Maybe it's 10,000 yards of good material and there's only a few thousand yards of of that subs soil that we would have to get rid of. By doing an early package, we're
really saying we're going to take all 15,000 yards off. And if we had a general contractor there and they had the option, they might they might do with different means and methods. They might try to to not bring off as much and and we might even as we're continuing to develop this, we might be
able to get a better sense of that because I think right now we have no indications of any contaminations or any any kind of bad soils out there right now. this $113,000 that we're we're talking about is to test to do further testing to either confirm that or
confirm that we do have, you know, lead levels or or um different things. Maybe there was an oil tank we found, you know, we found where oil leaked in from an old tank. There's no indication of that right now, but we'd have to we're looking to potentially do that. And the
reason why we would have to do that is the soil has to come off. It has to go somewhere and the where it goes, the people want to know what what what they're bringing to us. So that that's really what this testing is for. So um the testing right now is assuming 15,000 yards. It's assuming 500 cubic one test
for every 500 cubic yards of material coming off. And it it's pretty extensive. But um what we we we've talked about we actually asked do we really need to do one every 500? Could we do one every 5,000 or or things? What the the answer came back is pretty much
the regulations in Massachusetts have gotten stricter and stricter. You know, when I first got in the business, we just dug dirt and we brought it to the next site and moved on. Like, but now everybody needs to have like bills of rating and understanding, you know, exactly what's in the soils and everything. And it really has gotten
pretty pretty difficult to move soils around in in the state of Massachusetts. But it's it's working out for the best interest of everybody. We don't want our our contaminants if we had it to go somewhere else and cause problems to somebody else. So, um
the the geotech in the LSP said if there was another site that we had, you know, a town site that we could bring this to, we we have we could do a lot less testing. If if there was someplace else, you know, if uh the other project in town needs a little fill, maybe we can make a deal something like that. But um
but I I think where we're at at this point is we're we we'd like to have an an additional follow-up meeting on the early package to talk um kind of talk this through maybe a little more detail. We're happy to have everybody involved with it. Um I would I I'm going to
suggest or or maybe uh make a nomination for for Pat and John to be part of that because I think Pat has been a little bit involved already and and John certainly with your expertise. We'd like to to kind of get your thoughts on it and see are we going down the right path with this early package or should we
really think about pausing it and if we're going to go down the path with the early package, I think we need to do this 113 as soon as possible. If we're not going to go down the path with the early package, I still think we're going to have to do some testing. Do we do $113,000 worth of testing right now or
do we maybe do one for every 2,000 yards or every 5,000 yards and see what that gives us? And then maybe we do some additional testing from there. We'll have a little more time to do that if if you will. Um kind of a a lot of information there, but I don't know. I
I'll pause for a second just to see if anybody has any questions before I before we move on. A couple questions. So one um when when and how is it determined? So we have a site where we're going to
export material from the site. Uh when and how is it determined that we we have no indication of any contaminants? Um no historical um knowledge, no nothing on site when and who decides that okay we need to
test this materials. I know. I know. I know. Getting back to, you know, NY's comment, if we're the developer down the road, we're digging a hole and we're exporting material, bring it back to our yard or bringing it to another site. If I do an addition on my house tomorrow, they're going to dig a hole. We're not
going to have an LSP out doing that. Where is that break point? And I and I've been involved in other large scale municipal projects where I'm almost positive there's been no wholesale testing every 500 years. Isn't Isn't it I'm going to try myself, but isn't it
basically where you're bringing it needs to test done? So, if you bring it to a dump or one of these different places, they need a test to show if they can go there or it has to go to a different place for contaminated. I was gonna say I kind of asked the same
question and and I think Lee's answer is what the the answer was when you bring it somewhere they may ask you for that and and I said well that's assuming that it's contaminated it has to go somewhere because you know if there's three landfills landfill one takes a certain level of contamination landfill two
takes the next level up landfill three takes the next level up but they charge different rates so I said but that's that's starting from a point of assuming that we're contaminated already and you know if we're not contaminated ated like you know can't to your point I I just had a pool dug this summer and I dug you
know two truckloads of dirt out of there and it was trucked away I didn't have an LSB on on you know on site and but there was also no indication that I had an oil well or an oil tank in my backyard or something if if they were digging and they found you know uh you know smells in the in the dirt or this so we we
could wait and see what the testing uh see what happens as the earthwork goes out but I I guess the question there is I I think $113,000 is a lot to pay right now. Does that mean we shouldn't do some testing? Maybe we should do something, but maybe not that level. But I think
what we're trying to do here is the penny of prevention versus pound of cure kind of a thing. Like right now we have an unknown penny in well that's why I'm saying 113 is not what but right now we have a a a complete unknown if you will or a virtually complete unknown. we start to
understand a little bit better the risk profile go down a little bit and we have to risk we have to balance that risk versus reward right like you know if we're spending a lot you know all this money um we we could wait and and have the LSP out here while the earth works
happening and if we run into issues we run into smells we run into a a visual inspection something that that looks we do the testing but the the the risk there is that we we then stop project you know or delay the potentially because we have to test it at that point
and we we have to go through those processes. So yeah, my my understanding was that um this soil has to go somewhere and wherever it goes whether it's to
the contractor's yard and then to another project or if it goes to some kind of landfill facility. um wherever it ends up, those people want to know that it's not contaminated
soil. So, according to our LSP, this is an industry standard 500 um testing one sample for 500 cubic yards. um that
would allow you to um would give would give anyone a sense of confidence that this is clean soil. Now, um all of this really ties into whether or not to do an early package. No, doesn't it? It doesn't.
So, so you've separated it. Yeah. Well, test like if we have to test if if your LSP is telling us we have to test the soil that's coming off. We have soil coming off. So, we're going to have to test it. Like, but I think back to past the initial question, I think what you said, Jenny, that's what I've been
saying. If we're bringing it to a landfill, we have to have it tested. But if it's clean soil, like like if if I gray my yard out tomorrow, I don't say, "Oh, do you have a a bill of lighting showing where that soil came from and that it was tested?" And I just assume
that company is has done their due diligence and they're not giving me dirty soil, I guess. But uh um what what is a contractor put in in terms of risk for if if they're just given a clean slate saying, "Okay, here, you know, you're you're assuming the
risk." Um because isn't that isn't that part of this discussion here is who's taking on the risk? What is it going to do to a bid? Okay. Um especially when it's a competitive bid too. How much information is typically supplied in in the bid
documents? And I'll just say that we have done a composite test from the from the the the borings that we've already done and everything was clean. Sure. Okay. Right. Everything so far has been clean, but it's it's a very small sample. You
know, it's 40,000 yards or or 30,000 yards coming off the site overall and we've done one test if you will. But but it was a composite from various it wasn't just like one hole. It was from all the holes. So So I just want to be really clear. If we
do an early package, say we don't do this just that's the that's take that off the table. We use what we have right now. If we put it out there and of course they might put in if there was an early package that particular site contract might put in some money
contingency to deal with this kind of thing. They'll have to do testing as they move all the stuff. They'll have to do it in time in their in while they're doing it, right? They're never going to do the testing. If we require them to if we include a
it's our so we would have to do the testing. If we include a if we include a soil management, you know, protocol in in specification. Oh, so we'll have to do that testing at that time, not beforehand. I'm just confused about like don't we
have to do we have to do something sometime or if you don't do the early package and you give it all to a contractor later they're responsible for all of it they hire a site guy he comes in it still has to be tested as they're trying to truck it out and all that and
that money get might get that might exist but it happens then in the construction budget or in the soft cost back then it seems to me like a lot of that money or it's true that you may not spend all of it, but it's
probably going to get spent sometime during the course of this project. I just don't know when. Now, I'm I'm naive. So, I'm just bringing it up kind of like now or later. Do you want to do it? But if we put it out, if we do get it out for an
early site package, we just give them the You're saying that we could just give them the information we have now and then deal with it when it happens. Well, I think if we're waiting to do the testing later, the time to do the
testing has to be accounted for, you know, somewhere. Yeah. So, if you do it early, you could just do the Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to bring it up because I think it exists regardless of where it happens, but but um maybe not as much.
Maybe one other thing just to add to this to maybe make it a little easier to understand because I didn't really understand why we need to do the testing if it's clean. One of the things that came back is that the fact that it's fill material, they said if we had this geotech report and
all the material was exactly the same, but it was all identified as natural soil in place, always been there, we wouldn't need to do any testing. But because it's fill material over a certain level, that's when they say, "Well, it's fill material. Where did
that fill come from?" That's when that's what the LSP is saying. So now I will tell you the answer to my question, my original question is the fact that still material is what's triggering the the 500 the the
one test per 500 yard requirement and turning it into a regulated site. I that's that's everything needs to be filled. If we test it, if we go through the testing process, everything's going to be less than RCS1 and it's going to have to go to like an
online landfill because the requirements are so strict. If you dug a if you dug a hole in my backyard, that's probably what you would find. Um, but you don't need to. There are like I've worked on sites where there's there's no environmental testing done.
material is leaving the site, coming back on the site. Yeah. Again, if you dig a pool in your backyard, you don't you're not required to do this without evidence of Yeah. But I would say if you're bringing fill to your yard, you are required. You need a permit to show that that's been filled.
Got it. The other thing I will say is looking at the So when when does that bill get tested? It's like somewhere in that some site has it and you can bring it back. So what what we learned is that one year removing this bill, if it's going to
someone who's going to resell it, they need to know what the testing is, right? Otherwise, they don't want to take it because it might be contaminated and then it's just But don't you leave that up to the contractor, right, to they're going to determine, so
to speak, where Well, and that's where I think this bigger discussion happens. Um, like I was at the point a month ago or a week ago that we were taking four, well not a week ago, a month ago that we were taking 40,000 yards off and that's why
we were really pushing. But now that it's 15 and now that we've looked at it even more like if we do test it and we do have some sort of contamination level, the first thing the LSP does is says try to minimize what you have to export, right? Because it's it's saving you cost. We started looking at that
that gravel that was above that that fill material and it's really a good structural gravel. A couple pieces of it had a little bit of a higher silk content like I think 11 or 12 instead of under 10. And there was one that just missed the the number four civ by like
1%. You know very close to structural gravel. And so I started saying, well, if that's the case, maybe we should be designing our spec to say you have to remove the subs soil down below, but
everything else we want we want to be left on site. So this is in layers. Yes. Right. That was one of my early questions to to the geotech is can we reuse the the filled soil and shove it around the site, you know,
and his and his report actually says you can. Yeah, that's right. And you know, the one thing that I think he cautioned is that we have a very small site. And if you're going to truck that soil off to a stockpile somewhere and then truck it
back on if it's clean material, that trucking cost is going to be more than just getting rid of it. His thought was that it would not be cost effective to reuse. But we've actually in our 60% said we've asked the estimators to um estimate that approach. That's a
great So, we we just released the 60% documents, so we're getting estimates on that. So, we're we're going to have a little bit better information on that in the next week or two. And the last one is that it's going to sound crazy, but the town has a has a stock pile or a pit where
they'd like to put this material. question does the you bring it there and you test some of it and you're pretty confident it and you take hold of it and it's yours and then we bring in other stuff for you. Yeah. Are there not some gravel pits over at
the town forest which need to be built um in the town forest? Near the town forest. Oh, near the town forest. I'd have to that was the original gravel source for the town, wasn't it? Way back. I I have no comment. I don't know about that. before my time. But
we could go get to it though. The only other thing I'll say, I don't know that there's any way to prove it or disprove it, but when I looked at the existing grading drawings for the old ones that showed the pond, there was an existing structure on site. It was
and it was on top of a hill. My guess is that fill, they just pushed that hill into the pond. So, it was probably naturally occurring soil. Yeah. from that site that was just pushed, you know, regraded on that site. I don't think there's a way that we
could prove that. But that's kind of like I don't really believe that there's a lot of fill from somewhere else that was brought in here. I I I literally think they just pushed that hill into the into the into the pond and kind of they could have, you know, the old foundation of that that that structure
in there or something. The I if I John probably remember better than me, I don't think there was evidence of that. It didn't look like urban fill. Yeah, it didn't. It looked like It looked like It looked like good good material. Good material, right? Yeah.
The Are we um Are we planning to to dare on this soil? Like the area that we're focusing on is within the building footprint. So, we got to take out everything. But if if this is effectively meets the civ
the structural fill, is it too loose? Well, so that was the question that I think Maj the geotech said he wouldn't mind leaving it on site, but he'd want it to be brought back in in 12in lifts. And I said my question beyond that is in is if this material was put in 10 years
ago or five years ago and it was just dumped in in a 5ft pile and left because it's a field. I might be worried about that. I don't know what your thoughts are. It's been there for 70 years. Even if it was dumped in a five foot lift, it's settled for 70
years or or 50 years. Like I don't know that you're going to get much better compaction than what what what you've got out there right now on that other than where the subs soil is. You're going to get rid of that in the top soil. But I think on the on the southern half, I I don't know that like if I was
if I was the site contractor, I'd probably run a roller over it and see, you know, see what happens. that if it doesn't look like if it's it's moving too much, if it if it's it's pretty good, I'd probably be like, you know, it's good to go. But, um, the only fear is if there's organic materials in it,
but that that was not his assessment. That was not the jeans. That Yeah, that was not the So, I mean, that would be what they worry about is that it's rotting in there. There's air. But there is we've already we there are some the northern half. We have that, but not in the southern half.
Yeah. So, so there you have it. Um, okay. So, just a quick one. 15,000 yards has taken everything under the building footprint down to the I assume it's glacial till correct. All the fill material and then and then we're going to bring bring back in import structural.
I don't think it's down to the till. It's not down to the naturally occurring natural four. Yeah. Yeah. It's two to three in the low end, four to five average. I think it's 10 or 11 on like kind of the the test
pit that's the closest to the uses building is the is the one that has the deepest problem you know so like because we were looking at that do we need to do some sort of support of excavation and we think some sort of temporary support can be probably managed there but yeah the soils here are 10 times better than the soils of the other project
regardless I mean well you know we're bearing directly on those well yes maybe we can bring these open. I mean really no sorry. Can we bring Well, you know that we did mention we
did mention that at the meeting of the other projects. Yeah. Because I my view is we need to strip off three or four feet of fill over there. I know where we can get some. Yeah. Cheek. Yeah. So I I think if we took some of that
off, some of that overburden fill, maybe gave it to the recal project that you could give yourself enough space and enough leg room that you could then like if you broke that site into say thirds, take the the bottom third off and then you move the middle third to the bottom
and comp, you know, in compacted lifts and then you move the back end to the middle and you you kind of, you know, you've got it good. So I I I think there's going to be a little bit of excavation that has to come out of there anyway, but you strip the top soil first. And again, this is this is maybe the details that we were thinking would
be great to kind of hash out with actually the drawing up on the on the on the screen or, you know, taking a look at it. The advantage of not doing a pre um earthwork actually is the contractor does all these machinations. You know,
he thinks with himself, he does these things and you you never really hear about it. it just does it. We're doing the contractor's work now. We're trying to think how would a contractor have and if the contractor has a place to get rid of it, that place might need one test every 5,000 yards or every 2,000
yards rather than every 500. And I think the other thing is that they might take it from the hillside that is naturally occurring and we don't need to test it because it's not filled, you know, where where all the trees are growing, for example, or something like that. So th those were the things that have been running through my mind for the last
week or so. And so that's why we wanted to we wanted to have a discussion but I guess you know back to the back to this number here and back like we have to make a decision we collectively or or you have to make a decision with our with our with our
input. Um do we want to do an early package or not? And if we do need if we do want to move forward with the early package then we really need to get this testing going. If we decide collectively that we don't, and I'm not saying we have to decide tonight, but if we decide collectively that the early package is
not the way to go or that we want to have, you know, a little more flexibility, is there a cost premium for the early package? Apart from this testing, is there a cost premium nevertheless identify? you Jun we're looking at we're assuming right now um the early package
when we were doing 40,000 yards we assumed six months and we thought that would save us two months time on the back end uh so you're paying general conditions general requirements for 6 months but it's GC's GRS to a site work contractor only to say two months
potentially or of general contractor general requirements so we I would say we thought it was a wash I think with the 15,000 yards that 6 months you thought could go to 5 months. It's not like you can cut it in half because they still have to set up fencing. They still have to set up hay bales and erosion
control. They still have to kind of get the site organized and and strip the top soil and stuff. So it might go to five months, maybe four four and a half months, but um so I I I still think it's probably a wash, but uh it is getting the the the you know the the the the
cost there is certainly uh coming closer to being a a little bit of a premium potentially. I think you pay a little bit of a premium for the early early package. One way is you're kind of stuck with, you know, hauling all the material off. If it's all part of the contractor's
package, they might be able to find a way to, you know, we might be removing less material, which might be a savings. The benefit in my mind is that if you do have um if you do run into, you know, we we
put a put a shovel in the ground and we find the, you know, really bad stuff, which we don't think we're going to, but we run into something that causes a major delay to the project. I think you're in a better position if you have this delay and you have a $500,000 to a
million dollar site contractor that you're working through this as opposed to a, you know, hund00 million contract with all the subcontractors and filed subcontractors and they're they're put on a three-month delay. Yeah.
They're potentially looking for extended general conditions, escalation costs, all these different things. you're in a if that happens, I think you're in a better position. That's I don't think it's a high likelihood, but that's like the the where I think a an early release package helps us mitigate risk, but I do
think you pay you'll pay a little bit of a premium for doing that because we're going to, you know, going to have two separate contractors. So, it's a lot to think about and and but we wanted to bring it forward and kind of like what we were talking about earlier with the $7,600. I don't know if
we want to propose approving contingent on some follow-up meeting or if we want to just have the follow-up meeting come back. But I think the longer we wait, the harder it's going to be to to get that done and and keep the early package on schedule, if you will. Um
because even right now, if we vote 113 and and are able to move on that testing, we're right up against the date or even close And because they have they take so long to do the testing and and
and all this stuff that takes what nine weeks or some crazy thing. And so it's just a very slow process. We can't we've talked to them. They won't speed it up unless we pay them extra money even more.
Okay. So um we need to make a decision. It's probably um you the on the the proposal on the table is to have less subcommittee of at least Pat and John and anybody else who would want to jump in um meet
on it um and potentially have them make the decision or is four weeks too long of a time period? Four weeks is probably too long. So I I would say we'd like to have a meeting with with the two of them and anybody
else with the OPM team, the design team, the LSP, the Geotech, the civil civil did you say you went on civil there as well? Like just have a meeting of all the minds to it's not necessarily to talk 100% about the testing. It's really to talk about the early package if we
want to move forward with the early package. And if if the answer is that we want to move forward with the early package, then we really need to move forward with the testing. The answer is we don't feel that the early package site early package we'll talk about the other early package in a minute but the site early package is needed at this time. It gives
us more time to understand what we want to do for testing if anything do we want to put that to the contractor. Do we want to write the specifications that the the goal within the building is to keep as much soil on site but remove the un unsuitable that I think that that
that's kind of where I'm leading myself right now. So, so is is the question for the committee is if we um vote on this $113,000 now and then leave it to a subgroup
meeting of at least two parties and anyone else who is interested to potentially make that decision at that time. Um so we could move forward if we decide to do the early package. That's correct. If we don't, it doesn't matter. it just
the the vote is kind of null and void. If we don't, we would just come back to you with a with a a more complete plan or recommendation of how to proceed at that point. Yeah. Go ahead, Johnny. I have some scheduling concerns about that approach. Um, as it stands, if we
approve, if you were to screen, approve this additional service and we give our consultant the notice to proceed tomorrow. Um, like we don't have a day to to
even even a day to like we wouldn't be able to start the early package at at the time we're planning right now and then it would be delayed. we will have gone through the right process. Right? Okay. So, if you take a week, here it is. We could you would be
delaying the um the site package by a couple of weeks, it could go through this process probably because if if we end up having to do this what you Okay. Go ahead. What happened?
No. Well, I mean there is a schedule. So, so let's do that is you know if if if we're going to do this then the the thought is to have this meeting within the next couple of days right that would be
that's wrong okay all right um any comments from the committee on it as long as it's on time and under budget I don't the last 45 minutes reminded me of the
select board and I kind of don't like it. So, I'm fine with John and Pat. Uh, you know, if if they ain't in agreement with something, it's fine by me. I'm going to agree with something that that probably Mike goes through on every project is we have these timelines and
they do change. Oh, there's a there's a review here. Oh, these people are suing, you know, like whatever it is. And we try to hit the most advantageous timeline, but they do shift quite a bit. And these are the kind of decisions I've seen on just about every project in some
fashion. So there's a flexibility that happens here and we have to kind of roll with it. And I appreciate what you're trying to do. Get us through it. We're fine rolling with it. To be honest, it it it feels a little bit like why aren't we talking about this in
July? The soil's been what the soil's been. And it does feel like there's a bit of a repeat on this project of large numbers coming to us without a lot of uh fair a lot without a lot of for you know
forewarning. Um so but I'm I'm all I think we have a plan in place. Kirk might have some questions about this that we haven't even got to yet. I'm ready to move on. I think his questions were very similar to what we talked about. We should definitely maybe run through his. I think he had four questions. Greg, Greg
has I believe Gre Greg has his hand up, too. Go ahead, Greg. Yeah, I was I was just going to add from from a context perspective, I have never been on a project that did not have an LSP and soil
pre-caracterization. So, I think to it makes me a little uncomfortable to say we don't think we need it or we might not need it or who knows or let's let's wait and see. I think, you know, in in the interest of
time, letting letting Pat and John evaluate or or hear the rationale for or against, but I I think the simple answer in my mind is there's got to be a requirement somewhere, whether it's, you
know, uh, D, whether it's code. I I don't know what those triggers are because I've never been involved in that um contemplation. But I think the fact that we're sitting here asking and wondering whether or not we should be precarizing soil or not
is is not a good place to be considering the timelines and the and the risk. Okay. In my mind, soil if it if it's pre-caracterized in trucks somewhere, it I I look at soil the same way I do hazardous material,
right? If it's to the point where you have to test it and pre-caracterize it and have an LSP and manifest to truck it somewhere, the town owns it. It's the towns and it's the town's for perpetuity and whatever landfill or place it goes to, the town's always responsible for it. So I I think it's it's not a it's
not a casual discussion or casual conversation or a subtle issue. I think it's it we need to very clearly define what the requirements are, what our legal legal obligations are and proceed accordingly. Kirk, did you have something?
My one of my main questions was about the impact on schedule and I think that um that everyone has has discussed that pretty pretty thoroughly so far. Um I general aside from schedule I was just interested in how this cost proposal
compared to other similar proposals for um uh similar amount of of work to be done. Um so I'll let Mike speak to that, but really it's it's like everything else. It's impact on schedule and cost were my main concerns.
Yeah, as far as projects, I'll certainly let Jenny and Lee talk about their experience. In my experience, um it seems every year there's another regulation and and and or another landfill that's closed down and not accepting soil anymore. So, it just seems like these costs are always going
up and up on on soils. Like I said, when I first came into the business 30 years ago, I worked for a site contractor and never, you know, for for the for the two different site contractors I worked for for probably seven years, I never ever considered any of this. Um, you know,
other than when we dug and we found an oil tank, then you said, "Oh, we got to we got to deal with, you know, any contamination around the oil tank." That was really about the extent of of what we would get into. it. Um, you know, I did a project at Nor Eastern about a decade ago and that was right next to
the railroad tracks. It was an old railroad station and it's Boston blue clay and and everything and it had every type of contaminant you could possibly imagine in there. So, that was really my first, you know, real foray into getting
uh detailed discussions with LSPs. Uh, I actually reached out to the LSP. worked with for about two years out there and and talked to her a little bit about this project and not telling her not not from a professional standpoint but just hey you know one friend to another what do you think and she came back to the
whole discussion about the you know the the naturally occurring versus the urban uh fill versus the field not urban field but versus field conditions and I I that's you know I didn't really connect it until you said it Pat but that's really what what's driving this I think if if it was all natural soils
uh and it was clean. We might be less there might be less need, but I think to Greg's point, it's not a matter of testing or not testing. It's testing into what level of testing you have to do uh for those fill areas. Yeah. In in my experience,
um this testing gets done by the contractor when they're getting the stuff off the site. Usually you don't bring all this stuff off the site like you're doing. Oftent times you're doing blasting or something and it costs
three four million dollars to do all the blasting. I consider ourselves lucky not to be doing blasting. Let me say that first. Typically this um money would have been in the bid at another time and not been
done. And because it's an early package, it's being done and we would have talked about the testing and the stop cost during construction. And then we would have this discussion during construction. It would be in a a change order, you know, so what we're trying to
by bringing it up front, it it looks different because there it is and we're not even building anything yet and there's not testing. That's why it looks different now than it would in a year and a half. Um, so
You know, I obviously we have to do it has to somewhere along the line. It has to be done. That's my take. And I I really do leave it up to you guys to look at the look where we are. We're still right on track and to see if we
should just do this and uh and uh see what happens. Is there any way Is there any way I'm just going to ask this one question that they get halfway through? They haven't tested any of it. That's the problem. It's all or nothing, isn't it?
It's all or nothing if we do the early package. If we don't do the early, we could choose to That's right. do a a smaller sample size and then that's what kinds do some of it, have it tested while you're still working on it and going, "Oh, there's nothing here. Maybe we
could back off." You know, but we can't do that. I mean, the geotech person has been very clear with Jenny. we've she's talked to him, you know, over and over and over about this. So, um, we feel like we're kind of in a bit of a corner,
but with Mike's help was we were able to get it down to a much more reasonable number for pre-cribing the site is what we're doing. Clean prescribing on the site. Can I can I just come back to something
I've mentioned several times in the past? It's our job as a committee to listen to the experts and ask what they what their proposal is and then if we don't like it react but we do like it.
So I think really it's up to you Mike to be very clear as to what you pro what you prefer, what you propose, what you think is right for this job and then you know we can agree or disagree. we probably will agree that um so rather
than Pat and I getting too much involved in this, I think you should be very clear as to what you think is the path forward and and we can agree on well and I think to that point what I want you to hear is not just from me. I want you to hear maybe directly from the
LSP and the civil and like so that you hear the full story. I don't want it to be colored by me or colored by Leo Jenny. I want you to kind of hear it direct from the horse as well if you will. So I think once you hear that, we'll let you ask your questions and then what we'll do is at the end of that
discussion, I will make a recommendation. I will say based off of what I'm hearing, this is what I'm I'm thinking. But I do want you to hear from everybody. Like I said, specific like for the the compaction, Majid says you have to take everything out. He's the geotech. Take everything out and do 12in
lifts. I'm thinking if it's been there for 70 years, it's probably not going to get any tighter. But, you know, I'm not the expert. He is. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's wise. It's a It's a great way to go. Yeah. And uh it's wise.
Let's get it done. All right. So, we'll we'll reach out to to Pat and John tomorrow morning to to try and or maybe even right after this to see what you have for availability so that we can try and get something scheduled up as soon
as possible. Um, what is the desire as far as the the testing? Do we want to do a contingent on that? Do we want to I'm okay with doing it as a contingent? I don't know. Everybody else otherwise you have to wait a month. I think that makes sense.
Yeah. Please make a motion to approve the um the 113,86 is it? LBA. LBA 19 line 30-210
contingent upon review by John C and Pat Tommpkins and anybody else I guess discussion with the um with the uh providers the the subs I guess is what you want to say right the experts
experts there you go the professional team the professional team there professional Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Pat. Any discussion? Okay. Um, seeing none, we'll go for the vote. Pat, yes. Sean,
yes. John, yes. Um, Chris stepped out. Kirk, yes. Greg, yes. Nancy, yes. And Carla, yes. And that motion passes. Thank you everybody. I know that was a long discussion. I'm trying to make the rest of this sad. We'll we'll we'll
breeze through the rest of this. I I think um so we have the invoices. Um we've now approved the uh complete cleaning $140 and that one will give us the the uh potential to be able to
approve those invoices as well as the LBA, the collars and the the Gap. So, I think we had voted a while back that we didn't need to officially vote these, but then I think with the finance committee, you did want to vote on them. We do. We do.
We do. I would like them to be voted on with the amounts with the amount each one individually. You can you can take them as a group if it's like all of the you know, same vendor, right? LBA or whatever. But okay. Or you could do the um the invoice
number. So um both. Okay. So complete cleaning has two. LBA has four. Those four are actually one invoice. I think
Okay. Justin might have the total for you on that. Yeah. LBA's uh had it written out. LBA's total invoice is $484,745 [Music] for invoice 22499.
So move for acceptance. Second. Any discussion? We'll go into the vote. Pat, yes. Sean, yes. John, yes. Kirk, yes. Greg, yes.
Nancy, yes. Carla, yes. Okay. Motion to uh pay GNAP Architects $1,750 invoice. Is that invoice number 682? That's right.
29-5. Yes. Second. Second. Seconded by Pat. Any discussion? Time for the vote. Pat, yes. Sean, yes. John, yes. Kirk, yes. Greg,
yes. Nancy, yes. Carla, yes. Okay. Motion to pay Collier's project leaders $30,252.50. Uh invoice number 1089820. Is there a second? Seconded by Pat. Discussion.
I'm here now. Carla. Thank you. Okay. To the vote. I didn't see. Yes. Sean. Yes. John. Yes. Chris. Yes, Kirk. Yes. Greg,
yes. Nancy, yes. And Carla, yes. And then, uh, complete cleaning company for the total amount of $2,740. Invoice numbers 14678 and 14679.
Second. Okay. Any discussion? Going to the vote. Pat. Yes. Sean. Yes. John. Yes. Chris. Yes. Yes. Greg. Yes. Nancy. Yes.
And Carla. Yes. Um I think that's everything for financials, right Justin? Or did we do um did you check modular filling for 1640 1,640?
And I think there was some that's completely I put those two together. Perfect. Hope they are in there. And we did LBAS. Yes. As a group. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you,
Nancy. Okay. Schedule. So, so I Yeah, I apologize. The schedule that we are going to show now is the same schedule that we've uh we've shown in the last couple of meetings. I I didn't realize it didn't get dropped into the folder with the rest of the package. So, that's on me. I apologize
for that, but I can run through real quick. Mike, if you want. Sorry, I'm just closing down the uh need a lot of things open there. Uh number six. That was one way. Sorry.
So right now um we are LBA is currently running running through oh LBA and colleers are running through the next submission uh which would be the 60% and as far as the deliverables to the MSBA. So there'll be another package just like
we did with with um DDS there'll be a 60% CD package that is going to be coming up for approval I believe in November. Um, and then we'll be starting that 90% CD phase following that 60% CD submission.
Um, I believe we have coming up too, this isn't in the schedule, but it's part of the the DD submission. There's a uh a meeting next week with the MSBA to go over the the review comments for that DD submission just so it's everyone on everyone's radar.
And then we have the the two early packages. Uh the first one here is for the switch gear and generator. Um we had a conversation with another contractor that we're working with uh today. And Pat, we've we've discussed this as far as, you know, keeping our finger on the
pulse with if it is the right move to go with these these early packages, how they're trending as far as switch gear and generator availability. um that contractor said that they did see things started to trend getting towards more ordering later, but then
they went in that direction and found out they're just getting delays with that. So, it seems to be trending in the direction of get on top of getting things earlier, if that makes sense. Yeah. And in that contractor, we we actually did an early package with them
on another project and that generator or that switch gear has now been delayed twice. uh one month each time, but uh we're still in good shape because we did order it early. If we didn't, we might be uh a little more concerned. So,
exactly. Um and then we have our early uh package number two, which is the earthquake, which we've been discussing with the uh with the other amendment as far as that meeting that we'll be following up to this.
Yeah. So I think right now we're leaning towards or our recommendation is to do early package number one for the switch gear. The generator I think has gotten a little bit smaller and probably a little bit more readily available. So if it's the committee's desire to do the
generator with the switch gear, I think that's fine. If we wanted to do just the switch gear, we could do that as well. Um but because worst case scenario, if the generator wasn't there, you can always bring a temporary generator and you know as needed. We we we there's no such thing as
temporary switch gear. So we need to we we need to do the switch gear and then like like we talk about the earth work. We'll talk about that in the next couple of days on the earthwork package. Any questions on schedule? No. Um
so the the the third thing it kind of ties into financial and schedule. We uh was I provided the package uh three um um RFPs. One was for um yeah one was for the testing
construction testing that would be testing services material testing services throughout the entire duration of the project. One would be for a tax consultant and the other was for um peer review. Yes, the peer review. So, we're required
to do a steel code review, but uh it's it's been decided to do a few other uh code and trade um peer reviews. So, I just group them into one. Um I converted our RF RFPs to the town of Reading.
There are a couple different things where they're overlapped. So, um, Jane, I'd like to get into on a call with you sometime this week just to kind of go through what how we do the review process that's outlined in these RFPs. So, just wanted to kind of bring that to everyone's attention that these will be
um coming up soon. And I'm not sure if we have to approve to to submit them, but I just want to provide to the group so we can all review. Yeah. So, I think the question here is we we provided them. I don't know if people have had a chance to go through them, but if you have any questions, let
us know. I think if you see that there's two different sections that are kind of referring to the same thing, that's the thing that we need to review with Jane. I think what happened was we had our standard form. We tried to incorporate the the reading standard forms and it's a little bit of a conflict there. So I think we can work out those details and
we'd like to try and get these moving forward. Uh the material testing again, if we're doing early package, we're going to need it sooner than later. If we're not doing an early package, then that can wait a little bit longer. the tax consultant we feel the sooner we can get them on board the better for everybody. Uh and then then the peer
review again um that's probably less critical as far as the early package and things of that nature, but they are going to do need to do a review of the 90% documents which are coming out coming out in about six eight weeks and are or no not coming out they're they're
going to be starting starting they'll be starting that process but yeah you're right like we will need to have the steel peer review as part of the 90% submission to the MSBA. Yeah. Yeah. I think you can get on a call
possibly tomorrow afternoon. Um Thursday I'm sort of out of pocket. Um except for late in the day. Um so either late on Thursday or tomorrow afternoon we can find a time. Um I'll ask Josh to get in touch with you tomorrow, Justin, and we'll schedule something with um Katie
and myself and and Josh. And we didn't put it in the package because we're still working, but there will be one more RFP and that's for the mood manager, right? Yeah. Yep. Yep. It's early for that though and we're way ahead of time. We're just trying to get ahead. I love that about I love that about you.
I love that. Thank you. So on on those I don't know that the committee I guess let me ask you more of a question is do we want to vote to authorize those to be reviewed with Jane and once they're ready to be advertised
and issued or do we want to come back to the committee one more time once they're finalized? I I think I think it's probably okay to go through it now and and just approve it now. the tax consultant. We've been
talking about having a tax consultant um to help us with um potential rebates on the other end, especially if it affects design. Um the code review and construction plan. This also came out from um some of our town employees that
they wanted some of these code reviews. I kind of pushed back a little bit and then they were saying, "No, this is something we want." So, um, and then material testing that that's got to happen anyway. That's always a third party testing. Yeah. As far as I understand, these are these
are all uh probably going to be uh best practices as far as mass procurement, but we can discuss that further. Yeah, the testing probably will might be a little bit higher. The testing will probably be a six-figure number, but um the others will be relatively small, I
think. Does it make sense to um when um when it's at the point of a recommendation to award, is that a more appropriate time for the committee to vote on make a vote? I don't know if we're contemplating a vote as opposed to
now. Yes, to answer that question, we would definitely bring the the the proposals that we received and and kind of level them out and then present them to the to the group. As far as what we recommend, as long as you're okay with us, we're what we're saying is we need to probably
advertise in the newspaper potentially, at least for the testing one, and and put it out to public bid basically. And um so impact, there's no real action until we get the bids back and and then we have to enter into a contract with somebody. I think we're going to start
getting you know pricing so we'll get a sense of what the pricing is and we'll have a better idea and you know I don't know if we need to establish a different line for these or if they're covered already. So, we have a specific line for the testing. Um, the tax consultant, I
don't know that we had a specific line specifically set because that's relatively new and honestly that might be something once we get somebody on board or once we have a number that it might be worth having a conversation with the MSBA because they're always talking about commissioning and enhanced
commissioning and and bettering the project. Um, I'd have to think about it a little bit because the tax filter might not necessarily be enhancing. it might be just a better way to get some additional funds back for us. So, um but um I I I think we we can take a look at that, but I think the the cost of the
tax consultant will certainly be offset by the the rebates that we're getting we're we're getting back. And then the final one that the peer review, the structural peer review is required by mass state code and we're being asked to do uh ADA and and fire protection and
a couple others which are again not unusual. I've had many districts that have asked for that. Again, they have you have building inspectors that are kind of stretching their limits and we we definitely definitely do. And with with two projects going right now, there's a sense that um through the on
the part of the fire chief and the building the acting building commissioner, the interim building commissioner, the that the additional code review will be um important to help them with, you know, just the volume of the kilum school project. It's a lot to cover. Um, and you know, we have a
part-time electrical inspector, so it's just, you know, being able to have that bandwidth isn't there. So, there's confidence that it we're kind of okay on the recal side, I think, is I'm getting continuous feedback on that, particularly from the fire chief. But for the killum side, we want to see
those additional reviews go forward. Yeah. And and just so everybody understands, we do have professionals on the on the design team. they're going to stamp these everything, but it doesn't mean it's not a good idea to have a second set of eyes on it to take a look at it. So, and it's actually, like I said, required on structural and it's
probably good practices on everything else. Have you put out any propos any requests on structural peer review yet? I mean, no, we we figured it, you know, kind of economy and scale if we get, you know, firms to do all of them at one time. they're kind of getting to the do documents and and I know there might be
different people doing structural versus prior protection say but yeah they can kind of they they they still get all the documents all at the same time and they're you know one one report coming back basically why why that approach I'm not sure
understand why that approach would be efficient rather than putting out like four separate RFPs and getting four different sector groups and make potentially having four sepate contracts. It was just contracting with one one vendor that would would get them all for us.
Well, there's no one vendor that does everything. Um, we've I've had it done on two other projects. Well, we can put it out such that um the vendor can bid on a a portion of it
or you know all of it together and so we can we can price it that way too. Bill, just saying the last firm I worked with doing one of these things, they were kind of like a one-stop shop deal. They they could cover all of the items that we are currently looking for. Not that we're going to necessarily go with
it, but we will have to analyze the pricing. Okay. Yeah, I definitely disagree. Well, it's just like when you're hiring the designer, it doesn't mean that he does all the mechanical and plumbing and everything. He He brings somebody else in to do it.
We think you know, but if you want you want to hire an expert, you hire an expert. You don't hire a company that has experts in all kind of different grade because those experts are really not experts, you know, they're they're kind of second
class, second grade in my view, my experience. We should measure. No, no, there there are other people that that um you know a company which says it does code review and ADA and structural. No, those are
different people. They have different disciplines. They have different education. They have different backgrounds. They have different skills. And if you want quality, you go for this for specialist. Otherwise, you get kind of a bland approach, kind of the wishy-washy.
Yeah. I mean we want specific we want specific detailed I think you you need to have people who are experts in in a specific part of the the industry. Yeah. So we can use the language in the RFP to delineate that requirement as a quality
requirement and the procurement. We definitely have that in there already. Yeah. Okay. But I think your point's well taken. I agree with you. So we'll look at that. If we think we need a vote, I'll make a a motion. I don't know if we need a vote to move them forward with this.
I I guess it's more if anybody has an objection to any of them. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Maybe that's more I think it makes sense to um to move forward with the proposals on all three of them. Definitely. Yeah, definitely. Thank you. Thank you. Second.
Did you hear I mean I can make a motion if you want to vote. Yeah. I I'll make a I'll make a motion to authorize callers to work with town staff to put out the RFPs for the testing inspection services, the pair reviews and the tax consultant.
Perfect. Second. Seconded by Nancy. Any discussion? Six central. Okay, I'll move on for the vote. Pat, yes. Sean, yes. Chris, thanks. Yes. Kirk, yes. Greg, yes. Nancy,
yes. Joan, sorry I missed the motion. The motion, the motion, the motion is for for town staff to work with callers and about all those three. Um, yes. Thank you. And Carla, yes, I got you, Nancy.
Yes. Okay. Yes. Hospital. Perfect. The motion passes. Okay. Yeah. My wife's got a room. All right. LBA exterior material review. She had a room. Yeah, I'm okay. Okay,
this meeting has gone a bit longer than I think we anticipated. So, we'll make this soil. It's always the dirt. Yeah, dirty dirt. Once you get out of the ground, it's easy though, right? Yeah.
Project. It is a lot easier. Any little project. It's some stories I can tell you about how they handle dirty dirt and river. [Laughter] There we go.
Okay. So, um we have met several times with a um actually over the summer we had formed the exterior materials review committee and we met several times with that committee to finalize exterior materials and we just never came back
and shared um those decisions with this group. So, we thought we were kind of looking for a meeting that would be light on heavy content and we picked a bad one. it turns out. Um, but we'll kind of go through these materials. Um,
so what we have is a a pallet of um, durable um, uh, materials that are um, attractive and a really good value. Um so the um
starting from from the top Anna um is showing here the we have kind of an orange brick at the top of the buildings kind of a purpley brick looks a lot like on the ground floor and then um there's a masonry base um that
is um it's actually a CMU but it's a groundbased CMU that has quite a nice um finish and we actually have it in a couple different sizes so it's not that consistent. Can you see a new size? Its job is to look like granite
basically and it has it feels nice too at the base of the building where you get all the salt and the dirt and the it's pretty straight. You've seen it a million times but we are actually using larger um slightly larger pieces of it like it's called Manchester block
and it costs the same amount except you have to be very strong to put it in place. But they're actually all going to be the same. They just won't look they'll look a little more ston-like I hope than block. This proportion is like block. This will be like like that. So they'll look a little more like stone I
hope just to make it slabby. Yeah. And then we have the um the wood look phenolic which is a um phenolic which is a kind of a um resin uh product with a
wood look finish. Um very durable. That's um like on the same area and then we just got samples of the window frames, some of the metals on the building. So all of the wind so all of the windows and the doors are kind of an anodized aluminum which you guys have all seen
before. But I mean what's good about it is it's very natural looking. It's matte color. It's um I guess it looks very white, you know, in the sun. It's pretty normal and you've seen it a million times, but it's
very clean. And um on the roof edges, this is a metal, but it yeah, it feels a little more like a warm zinc or something, which you might So, it's really a really simple palette, but um you guys helped us espec I want to the people on the committee really helped us
get to something that was warm. And um I especially like personally I especially like at the bottom of the building where the kids are, it's going to be like that. You know where when you look at the
pictures, you're going to see this this stuff which is a little bit what you're doing. I'm sorry. It's going to be like this, you know, these panels of this this um slightly purplish darker brick down low with some
brick work. So when Jenny shows it, right, and she goes in say says in there, it's here. right here which is this is this like the like the blocks that look like
granite blocks in a way and then some brick work and these panels and then some more brick work just goes in and out a little bit so that these kids are in a different scale here because this is a big building you know and we're trying to create a little world down
here when you're down here and that band goes around but it feels this is just has a feeling to it. I just felt I think everybody felt it was a little more um inviting, you know, to have that. And then
sometimes it comes up and we simplified things and that the phenolic wood really only happens in certain places as an accent like a like a Right, Jenny. Y Lee, remind me of those two little um
metal. One was the window and one Yeah, this is all of the windows and doors. So And what's the other the darker one? Darker one is like the the metal around the edge way up here. Gotcha. Gotcha. Which is usually a little darker. And then this is really everything else.
Like even this I think is is going to be anodized cuz you you wanted it to be really simple. On the other hand, we do have a couple things we're not showing. Like underneath the the canopy here is kind of a a wood slat look. I brought that. You brought that?
Yeah. Okay. It's metal. It's metal. It's wood looking metal. You've seen it because you saw that on another show. And the idea is because now when you go into that school, you have that um wood ceilings and stuff which change everything.
Did I? There it is. So this is what that looks like. Yeah. Oh, this is actually metal. M. So, it'll look like slats of wood, but it'll be like everything we're trying to do on the outside. Hopefully, you won't
have to do much maintenance for a long long long long time because none of it's painted. So, so that's um that's the kind of things we're trying to do. And and Jenny, go ahead. And I just wanted to van vanize that.
Thank you. Um yeah, so some of the things that we mentioned, we have some textured brick work just from the bricks going in and out, which adds a lot of um richness and um texture to the facade.
Um, we have these wherever we have kind of a a piece popping out, whether it's uh the gem uh roof kind of popping up or the the stair pieces popping out and those are in that uh wood color. We have
little um canopies over the doors that are in that anodized aluminum. And um the loading dock area is kind of a series of of volumes. This is the cafeteria volume which is in that wood phenolic. The kitchen is in the purple
brick with more of that texture which actually kind of makes the brick look darker even though it's the same color. And then um some more of that masonry material. Just used a bit bit more of it. So that's a granite block, right?
The granite looking block. Yes. Yeah. It's a nice looking building. Who did you see as your visual client in in this? I mean, it's pretty obvious this is an adult building. Colors are
adults. They're not They're not kids. It's not They're not kids colors. M did you not think the kids deserve some um input? I understand from the design team that the teachers didn't want this to look like a kids building. Is that true?
I I'm going to say in a slightly different way. The out we think a lot about the children and you know how their scale and those kind of things and what they're touching and safety and all of that. The outside of a building like
this tends to belong to the whole community. Uh this is a big building and so when we met with the committee architects and other people on them, I think they recognized that and we had some colors, you know, we had like
different colors and things like that. I think it it typically comes down to this thing like pull back, let it be a building, let it be a public building. Um, and then let this and the warmth and stuff like that. And then when you go inside the building, um, let it really
become his uh, environment. And when we show you in a in a in next month once again, show you the interior, it is a different world. And certain things come in like the wood ceilings and things like that. But on the outside of the
building, um I think we were we were asked to do a building that felt like it was for the whole community. People driving by, people coming by. Um your building now doesn't h you know, if you look at your elementary schools now, they don't we we proposed some colors if
that's what you're asking. Yeah, that's what it meant. And we were asked to um reconsider that and to tone it down thinking that it might look sometimes things like that in a few years on the outside can start to look dated the colors and um I can
understand that as a community. I personally will do anything that people ask me, you know what I mean? And do it really well. I think the if this was a genre, you know, like of a school, this is a public school that has some playfulness and has some um has a
difference in like the massing and the pieces and the materials, but they people wanted it to feel like from the outside like it was natural materials, stone, wood, metal, brick, you know what I mean? Like like those just really base
materials from the outside. Um, they did I would say that they did bring a lot of cut color to the outside of the building and we I know me personally I said I didn't really care for it because I knew that the playground being in the
front of the building was going to have a lot of different colors too and I just I didn't want that as part of the building. Yeah, that's what Nancy said. I know I was surprised. I thought you it be a bit more kid- centric but um it's it's interesting. I I've done so many of this and I I mean we've care we
do care deeply about it. I think sometimes when you're in a city and it's a little more like graffiti, you know, you see a little more color and all that. When you get in in more like a town suburb, you know, things get a little more um on
the outside, they they do get a little more state. Yeah. Neighborhood schools, right? Especially neighborhoods. They don't really want something. But what I would say is this. We really focused on creating spaces on the outside like that canopy and that really draws you in and really focused on it having different
like buildings in it. So if you look at that picture right there, there's the auditorium which is like the wood, you know, sorry, the the cafeteria and that's along the scale of the houses a little more. And then you have like the middle
part which is the the brick and that's a different part of the building. and and it could have gone in many different ways, but I think that at least, you know, you guys were able to come up with a pallet that that wasn't too that they were
afraid of. It's a terrible responsibility to build a big building that everyone can see in the world on a street and then have somebody in 10 years look at it and go, "Oh, I don't like that at all." And um that's the
worst part about being an an actual architect. It' be easier to do the inside in the walls. The inside of this building is um is very joyful. Uh so I can't we're going to have a meeting tomorrow just to show everybody
the very latest when we show you that you'll see that there there is a transformation that happens when you walk in. And I really think I don't really believe in inside outside so much, but I do believe that that is where it starts to become kid place.
Okay, that's my best to describe why we are where we are. And also because once again, we listen because there are architects who come in, I believe, and they do whatever the heck they try to convince you of to do things that you
don't want to do. I don't think Paty would have let us do that anymore. Well, I mean, you would Who knows? Anyway, Nancy wouldn't let you do that. Nancy, I think that the exterior is elegant. And I think it'll be very well
like durable and welldetailed. When you go up to it, you won't it won't look I what I care is that you really get the sense that this is good construction and solid building and going to last. I just hope the entrance looks less like
going into a Walmart than into Aladdin's cave. So where where the transition is between adult outside and kids inside. I hope the entrance is that transition and it's not Well, it's interesting. So we do I I'm
the same as you. Um when you go to the front that that entrance there is this whole thing where it's that wood ceiling and that you can't you know the the arcade and then the the canopy coming out and grabbing you. That wood comes into the building into the large
vestibule secure vestibial area where you come in and then comes into where the lobby is and ends there and says here you know it kind of brings you right through. Prepared to be wowed. Mhm. Well, prepared to be wild. The reason I say that is because it's a
transition. It's bringing you through and you're inside outside during that time. Yeah. I know. But I'm serious, you know. Yeah. No, it's it could look like a Walmart cuz you're going in a head. We spent a long We spent a lot of time in that lobby because that was Yeah. It
was the most important. I don't want glassy. I want fun. Yeah. It It is. And it's whimsy. By the way, the facilities facilities people are also involved in all those because we don't want to have materials that they can't. Yeah.
I love gargoyles. You car from literature. The buildings people go and see in Europe, they all have gargoyles. Do you realize that? You know, nobody goes to see a building. Sorry. God. So gargoyles is the
gargoyles is what I need. Yeah. All right. Thank you for that question. I know it's a good question. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jenny. Okay, moving on to um approval of prior
meeting minutes for our um September 8th meeting. I think I had one um one thing Who have who's who's controlling this? You Josh. Josh, go to the right to the
beginning for me. Josh is in control. Okay. Um, keep going down, please. Okay. Right. I'm there. Um, one, two, three, fourth line down. approximately two hours and focus solely on the WMS
project. Is that Whitman potentially? That probably is a typo from that. Yeah. Yeah. So, this is about CPDC meeting, right? Um the hearing lasted approximately two hours and focused solely on the um on
our project, I think. Yeah, that's just a typo. Yeah. as far as Harani doing minutes, but yep. Yeah. Yep. I'll make move to approve the
minutes stated um 2025-9-8. Um as amended. Second. Seconded by Pat. Any discussion? Going to the vote. Pat. Yes. Sean, yes. John, yes.
Chris, yes. Kirk, yes. Greg, yes. Nancy, yes. Carla, yes. That was an enthusiastic yes by Greg. Um, future agenda items and next meeting
dates. So, our next meeting is Wednesday, November 12th because of um town meeting that week. Um we want to keep that meeting um moving and short because we'll have a long week. Um and then the next one after that we move
that to December 15. Um any other items people would like on the next agenda. If you have anything just email me please. Okay. Thank you very much everyone. Move to adjourn. Second.
And we go right to the vote. Pat. Yes. Sean, I'll give you a call. John. Yes. Chris. Yes. Yes. Greg. An enthusiastic. Yes. Yes. And Carly. Yes. We're ajourned. Thanks
everyone.