001Hi. >> So, we are now back out of executive session and we are going to move on with our agenda to 8B ECCA presentation DBH action. >> So, we have uh Chris and and and Greg from VHP here uh to talk about um the EKA that we need you all to improve. And I'm going to ask them to explain what that acronym is. I can never remember. Um, but >> All right. >> Do you need to be able to share screen, gentlemen? >> Yes, please. >> All right. Uh, there you go. >> All right. Thank you. Let me just go ahead and do that. All right. We're in Zoom. Sorry. Use Zoom, Teams, Google Meet. Trying to just remember where the sharing is on this one. There we go. >> All right. So, hopefully you're
002seeing a nice clean slideshow right now. >> Yes. Yes. >> You're just seeing the first slide, not the uh administrator screen. Right. Okay. >> We got presenter mode. Chris, >> you have presenter mode. >> Slide next one. And then we see next slide. >> Oh, okay. Let me hang on. I don't know why it's sharing presenter mode with you. >> How about this one? >> Oh, yes. Yes. >> All right. All right. So, u good to see you all again. Thank you for uh letting us uh come in and meet with you tonight to review this document. Uh my name is Chris Glowaki. I'm an industrial hygienist from VHB. Uh we are the consultant um helping the Bellof Falls High School with uh PCB assessment and remediation. Um like to introduce you to my colleague
003Greg. >> Yep. And hi, I'm uh Greg McDonald, uh project manager uh with the site investigation and remediation team uh at BHB based uh here in Mont Pillar. Been helping out with uh the PCB work at Bellis Falls since the uh beginning. >> All right. And what we're here to talk to you all about tonight is um a bit of a continuation from our last presentation earlier this year uh where we presented an EKA for two specific uh remediation items. At that time we were discussing uh remediation alternatives and preferred remediation methods for addressing uh spray applied fireproofing that contains PCBs throughout the school and also um a targeted uh remediation to uh discuss alternatives for how to address the uh paint PCB contaminated paint on the roof decking in the gym um in the
004context of how that was uh going to uh either be phased in or not phased and with uh the roof replacement of the gym that was still ongoing at the time. So, this um this is kind of a continuation of that previous uh presentation that we had. So, just a little bit more background on on the team here that's all working together. So, you have myself and Greg from VHB. Uh we work very closely on a on a regular basis. We meet u at least every couple of weeks with uh Kelly, Andy, Jeff, and Steve uh from the school. Um, and we also meet very regularly with uh Patricia and Eban from Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Uh, Patricia is the senior environmental program manager uh overseeing the PCB remediation projects. Um, and Eban uh
005is our PCB coordinator for the state of Vermont and also happens to be the site manager for Bellowos Falls. Um, couple of terms that you're going to hear us use uh throughout the presentation and you'll see throughout the document. Um first is the I rule. Uh that is the state of Vermont's regulatory framework for uh investigation and remediation of uh spills and releases. Um PCBs uh in the school are considered a release to the indoor environment. Uh and they do fall under the I rule. Um, a lot of this is related to the Act 74 PCB testing in schools where the state of Vermont required schools constructed before 1980 to test their indoor air for PCBs um at the point where PCBs were detected above an action level. Uh, that was a trigger to do
006additional assessment and remediation of those PCBs. So the next term you'll see a lot is evaluation of corrective action alternatives or EKA. Uh that's what we're here to present tonight. Uh the EKA is a document that is required as part of the I rule framework. Uh and it evaluates multiple viable corrective alternatives for each remediation item that you need to address and it uses a set of um I roll established evaluation categories to rank the alternatives. So throughout the ECA process, we're we're looking at um each of these alternatives that are um viable options for how to address the PCBs and when we're comparing them to a set of 10 criteria that are established within the I rule. And those include things like uh short-term effectiveness, long-term effectiveness, feasibility, is it even possible to do
007this? Regulatory regulatory compliance is it, you know, can this be done in in compliance with state and federal regulations? um sustainability, um short-term costs, long-term costs, um at community acceptance, uh and community acceptance is uh one of the reasons why we're here tonight is because we're going to uh go over the ECA document that's been published as a draft and take any um feedback or questions from the school board or uh any members of the community that might be in attendance tonight. Um after we are done with the EKA and that document is finalized, then we move on to corrective action planning. uh corrective action planning uh could be a um complete corrective action plan to address all of the items in the EKA or it could be uh partial or interim corrective action plans
008to address higher priority items from the EKA based on um you know what we can or can't do uh within this the operating parameters of the school depending on how disruptive it is depending on uh the phasing plan depending on the availability of funding. So, we're presenting this EKA to you and we're discussing the um different alternatives that we've explored and highlighting the preferred alternative that has come out of the discussions with ourselves and the school and the state. Um we're not, you know, we're not asking for um specific amounts of money to be obligated tonight. You know, there are uh short and long-term costs evaluated as part of the EKA. Um but the EKA isn't where um you know the the commitment is made to starting the corrective action and funding it either through
009available funding from the state or uh funding from the school. This is just discussing the alternatives and and um being transparent and looking for community acceptance or feedback on the approaches that we're recommending taking. >> So can I ask a quick one question as we proceed? >> Sure. Um Chris Hoden, I represent Rockingham. Um so you've talked about um finalizing the document. You've talked about that you're not asking that we it's not the board's place to take action for specific funding tonight and allocating. So as we proceed through this just for my own benefit, what will be the desired outcome from the board? So I it'll help me focus what I'm hearing in process. So we're soliciting feedback uh from the community on the preferred approaches that we're highlighting. You know, we've evaluated multiple different
010alternatives. We've identified between uh ourselves and the school and the state what we think is is the best approach out of those alternatives that we've explored. And you know, for transparency, we're presenting the um the EKA and soliciting feedback um on those preferred alternatives. So presenting this to the board is part of the process of soliciting feedback from the community and the community will also have a period of time to provide some feedback as well as I recall that that's part of the process. >> So the corrective action plans uh when they're not for emergency purposes um will be subject to a u notification period >> prior to the start of remediation. So the next step after this is we we start working on a corrective action plan which which will be posted for um
011uh public notice period. >> Okay. >> But yeah in general in general this is just you know a part of part of the transparent process where we're presenting the work that we've done so far the alternatives that we've explored what we think is the best way to move forward and just giving an opportunity for anybody to provide feedback or questions ask questions or comments on that. >> Thank you. I appreciate your answer and I think this is an important part of that process. So, thank you. >> Sure. So, again, um where why we're here, uh regulatory, state of Vermont, like I said earlier, required schools constructed before 1980 to test their air for PCBs. Um requires a further assessment and corrective action if PCBs are detected above any action levels. And those action levels that
012apply to this school um uh action levels that apply to the schools are based on the youngest age group present in the school. This is a high school. So the action levels are a school action level uh of 100 nanogs per cubic meter. Uh at that point you know you're above the desired action level uh which has been established by the Vermont Department of Health. Um and there are uh triggers for additional assessment and remediation. And the immediate action level is 300 nanogs per cubic meter. And as soon as you exceed the immediate action level um you're you're subject or potentially subject to uh occupancy restrictions uh which may or may not affect school operations. you know, in the in the past um the gym area, for example, was above the and in the last
013uh two school years, uh it was above the I both times and the school year started without full use of the gym. Uh that's currently not the case. Uh which is why we're not in uh emergency corrective action planning mode right now. Uh the federal regulations that apply are from the EPA uh under the Toxic Substances Control Act or TUSCa. Uh so Vermont regulates PCBs in indoor air. Uh TUSCa uh regulates PCBs in building materials. Uh specifically uh bulk product at a concentration of greater than 50 parts per million. And what what bulk product is is materials that were uh manufactured with PCBs and uh have existing um PCBs greater than 50 parts per million. There's other categories of materials such as uh remediation waste which are materials that were contaminated uh from the result
014of a release of PCBs. So like if you have uh PCB uh caul for example and that's in direct contact with uh masonry a porous masonry substrate the caul might be the bulk product and then the uh masonry uh the oil PCB oils leech into the masonry it becomes a contaminated substrate and it's known as remediation waste. Um there's secondary and tertiary um contamination that can result in uh uh the generation of remediation waste. Secondary is a a direct release from one material to another like the example I just used with the the caul and the masonry. Tertiary contamination is um say a PCB source releases uh PCBs into the indoor air and then they uh absorb into a uh paint or another material from the air that's a tertiary contamination but ultimately based on
015the the concentrations and and the types of materials those can all be um potentially categorized as remediation waste. So a little bit of background specifically on the school. Uh PCBs were first detected in the indoor air above the action levels in July of 2023. Uh gym area occupancy was restricted at the start of that 2023 to 24 school year. Um interim mitigation measures were deployed and PCB concentrations were reduced in the fall and winter of 2023. That was when uh those hund and something I forget the exact number but hund and something carbon filtration units were deployed around the school. Um material characterization started in the spring of 2024. That's when we started actually what that means is that's when we started actually taking samples of building materials trying to identify primary sources and potential
016secondary or tertiary sources. Um a remediation pilot study was conducted in the summer of 2024. And what that did was that we by that point we had identified the spray applied fireproofing which is present throughout the school on steel columns with um overspray on the block walls. We did a pilot study to test remediation methods to verify the effectiveness of the approach to removing the fireproofing and treating the block. Um that information was uh what was presented in the prior EKA earlier this year and we've already uh discussed and and um solicited feedback from the board and we have a preferred approach that we're moving forward into the first corrective action plan with that. Um PCBs were again above the immediate action level in the summer of 2024 and the gym occupancy was restricted again
017last fall. Um those we did some interimm corrective actions under an emergency action in the gym. We removed uh a large quantity of spray applied fireproofing from two mechanical uh and storage spaces that are located um from the gym that were you know open to the gym. Um and uh retest we continued using the carbon filtration units took out a lot of that material. Retested the air. the numbers went back down again and the gym was reoccupied and as of now it continues to be below the IL and reoccupied. Um, we did do additional material characterization in the spring of this year after we uh presented that last EKA to the board. And at this point, we've u sampled u all of the materials that we intend to sample at this point and categorize them
018as either uh nonPCB non-regulated materials uh remediation waste or bulk product. uh and that's why we're here now presenting the EKA for um the remainder of the work that that we think needs to be done in the school at this point. So, what I'm going to do is go over each of the uh each of the the groups of remediation items. Um we broke these down into uh different um sections based on uh the type of material being addressed and in some cases the location of the material being addressed. Uh the the purpose for breaking these down into these categories is because these are are individual uh groups of of remediation that need to be done that could be logically separated and and done in individual phases or we could combine some into one interim
019corrective action or you know we could do them all at one time combine them into groups or we could do them you know the whole school. uh it really provides flexibility and you know these are things that were um require different means and methods um and it makes sense to separate them out for evaluation of approaches and um evaluating the potential costs associated with doing the remediation. So the first one uh item number one is the um fireproofing on the structural columns. So we're not presenting any um discussion of alternatives and preferred alternatives here uh because that was done during the prior presentation earlier this year and um the the board at that time agreed with the preferred approach uh which is based on the outcomes of the pilot study and nothing has um happened
020since then that would uh justify changing that approach. So no, you know, just presenting this as informational, just um, you know, reminding everybody of what we talked about last time. No preferred alternatives to explore here. So the, uh, fireproofing is, uh, located on each of these 74 columns that you see highlighted in the image here throughout the school building. Uh, very heavily concentrated towards the gym as you can see. uh which uh we think is why the the gym in that area have had the most substantial impact from PCBs in the indoor air because that's where the largest amount of uh PCB bulk product is located. Um and the columns, you know, there's more columns and they're twice as high because the gym is exposed full height. So, it's a lot more material in general.
021And uh the two you're not seeing the uh fireproofing on the the two mechanical rooms anymore because that has been removed. This work is already being rolled into an interimm corrective action plan and with the uh recent funding that has become available, we're going to be submitting that corrective action plan for approval uh after we're done um finalizing this EKA uh to uh request the funding approval from DEEC. And we're looking to get started on a phased approach to this remediation uh this fall. uh what the phased approach will look like is we'll we'll start working in isolated areas where um you know in in meeting with the school we can determine that it's uh able to be done without you know substantial impacts to the school operations like for example number 72 and 73
022all over there on the side you know can be done with only having to relocate temporarily relocate those two classrooms uh whereas the you know the gym we can't do without having to separate out the entire gym. So that's likely to be done at the end of the school year. But the idea is that in a phased approach over the school year, you know, utilizing um strategic um time frames and breaks, things like that, that we can, you know, get a lot of these other areas done and then do one, you know, one hard push to finish the gym uh when it makes sense to access that space and take it offline. Number two is uh paints on the block walls throughout the school. This includes uh both the remainder of the block walls in
023the gym that are not part of the fireproofing remediation and the uh painted block walls throughout the rest of the building. So there's a couple of different alternatives that we looked at here. The first one was to manage the material in place uh by encapsulating it with a um uh non solvent or water-based epoxy encapsulate. This is a common approach to dealing with PCBs in paint when there's not a feasible alternative to remove them. Um but you'll see throughout the course of this evaluation that you know we the general trend is that when you look at the short-term and long-term costs together uh yeah the short-term costs are generally lower for uh encapsulating but when you factor in the long-term costs over the next 20 years when you factor in the long-term monitoring the potential
024need to have to reenapsulate uh if there's breakthrough of PCBs through the encapsulate which uh will eventually happen and it'll happen faster if the paint underneath has higher concentrations of PCBs in it. So, um, what we've found generally is when you when you look at the long-term costs, yeah, it's a little bit less expensive upfront, but the long-term cost can actually be higher if you go with the encapsulation option. So, that's why that's not highlighted in red. The highlights in red throughout this are the preferred approaches. Um, so the first option we looked at was encapsulating. The second was um removal. Uh the next one was removal of the paint down to a bare uh wall substrate and just repainting the wall. If we were able to hit the cleanup levels, we'll carry a contingency
025for encapsulation. If it doesn't, but the goal is to remove the paint down to a clean substrate and remove all that PCB material. The general um approach that we've tried to take to remediation is that when it makes sense for cost effectiveness, we want to do the more thorough, more complete option and take as much PCB contaminated material out of the building as we can. Um because that just makes um for less long-term monitoring, less potential to have to come back and repeat work later. and you know it just gets more contaminated material out of the building which which we think is a good approach and and certainly is the approach that uh EPA for example would um be more supportive of. Uh and then the last option that we looked at which is a
026very extreme option is uh removal and replacement of the block walls. So these are these are generally nonstructural walls. They're infill walls. So it would be feasible, maybe not practical, but it would be feasible to remove and replace some of the walls. Um, where we landed is a combination of encapsulation and removing the paint. So the about a third of the school which is the the gym area for the most part gym locker rooms things like that where we have much higher uh concentrations of PCBs in indoor air and much higher concentrations of PCBs in the paint on the walls we're recommending removal in the remainder of the school like the D-wing for example uh the PCB concentrations in the paint on the walls is already very low in a lot of cases it was
027you know down in uh uh low double digits 10 to 20 parts per million. Um, and encapsulation is a a really good option in that case because uh it's going to be more effective in the short and long term because the PCB concentrations are so much lower. You know, in the gym we have numbers uh at up to a couple of hundred. You know, that encapsulation is is going to be less effective in the long run and likely have to be redone. So there we think removing the paint is the better option. uh paint on the ceiling of the auditorium. Uh so we had um PCBs in this material. Um a couple of them were above 50 parts per million though not as high as in the gym. Um because this paint is on plaster
028ceiling uh which is not practical to remove and because the PCB concentrations are not as high as they were on say the block walls in the gym. Um, we're recommending encapsulation rather than demolishing and replacing the plaster ceiling. There's not a practical way to remove the paint from the plaster without damaging the plaster and ending up either replacing the plaster or covering over it with another substrate anyway. So, here we think encapsulation is is going to be the best approach. Right. Number four, uh, the stage wood floor coating. Um so polyurethane um was actually uh manufactured with PCBs. We don't believe that this one was because when we look at the uh araclore profiles, the type of PCBs that were found in the materials and the concentrations that it was found at, it was similar
029to a lot of other coatings in the building. So you we don't we don't think this was manufactured. We think it was contaminated in place, which makes it remediation waste. And that does open the door for a couple of different options. You're not uh required by TUSCa to remove remediation waste. Bulk product under TUSCa. You would have no choice. There's no continued use option. It has to come out. So, because this was classified as remediation waste, we we did explore um the possibility of encapsulating it with additional layers of polyurethane finish. We don't believe that that's going to be very effective in the uh short or long term because it's a wear surface. people walk on it a lot. Um the the surface gets gets ground down. There's a potential for breakthrough and potential for
030exposure and reemission into the air. Um we just don't think it's a a really good approach. So we looked at the possibility of stripping the stage down to bare wood and recotating the bare wood. Uh that is a feasible option because we did sample the wood substrate and we found that the wood was below the um what's called the unrestricted use cleanup level. Meaning if we did strip it down to bare wood and recode it um it would be an um would likely be an effective option. It would be regulatory compliant. Um but the stage uh is older and in discussions with the school and the school owners rep for construction um there were conversations about the need to replace the stage anyway. And the concern is that if we did uh that aggressive of
031a stripping of the stage that's more damage would occur and that we'd likely end up replacing large sections of it anyway. There's not enough material left there to strip it all the way down and recode it. Uh so since it's you know kind of reaching the end of its useful life or maybe even past it already uh the preferred approach is going to be to remove and replace all of the finished wood flooring and stair treads. Uh so that material will come out just like it would otherwise but it'll be um done with specific environmental controls in place by the remediation contractor. The material the waste materials will be handled differently and then a general contractor will come in and just put new wood down and refinish the stage. So this is this is a
032really good example of why it's important for us to work very closely with the school because you know we we might have looked at it in a in a bubble and said okay well the most cost-effective option and regulatory compliant option is to strip and recote the stage but you know in in having those detailed discussions with the school and saying you know where are what what does your capital improvement plan look like? What things what projects are you planning on? you know, are you thinking about doing anything with this stage in the next year, 5 years, 10 years? You know, where are you at with these things? That that conversation is what led us to this much better preferred alternative, which will just uh be a much um better solution for the school in
033the long term because it needed to be done anyway. Um the next item that we're going to talk about is uh the the painted roof deck above the stage. This is very similar to the gym uh roof decking, the exposed orange painted material that you see in the gym. This is just painted brown. Um but we did go back into the school's construction records, the original specifications. Uh the same coatings were specified for these materials just in different colors. You know, because obviously you don't want a bright orange uh ceiling above a stage. Wouldn't make sense. Want nice and dark brown or black. uh but they did specify um you know the same types of materials and in sampling these materials we did observe that there doesn't appear to be multiple layers of recoding over
034time um the materials have a little bit lower PCB concentration than the gym but then again the air in the auditorium was always lower than the gym so there's a nice correlation there where you see um you know materials absorbing PCBs more where the PCB concentrations in the air are higher So this is another remediation waste material and that lets us uh have a couple of different options to explore. Uh so the first one we looked at is encapsulation. Uh the next one we looked at was stripping down to bare metal and recoting. Uh and then we looked at the more extreme options of removing and replacing the roof deck and either um stripping the structural steel or um encapsulating the structural steel. uh because the you know we we followed a similar approach to
035the to the gym with this. Um there's we we talked with the uh school owners rep and found that stripping the um corrugated decking in place is not a great option because you know you're going to media blast it. You're potentially going to damage or thin the decking. Um not going to be a great outcome. Uh even if we can get all the paint off of the decking, there's still going to be paint left in crevices that you won't be able to get to um removing and replacing the roof deck uh here doesn't make sense if we're not going to do that in the gym and it's already been decided that we're not. So, we're carrying forward with the same preferred alternative for the gym and just encapsulating this material in place. Um the next
036one is uh wood paneling in the office area in the center portion of the the D-wing. Um not a lot of options really to explore when you start talking about wood paneling and uh sheetrock. So we looked at two alternatives and the first one is encapsulating it in place and the next one is demolishing and replacing the wood paneling. Um, this is a good example of where the evaluation of short and long-term costs comes into play again because the short-term cost is certainly lower for encapsulating it. But when you factor in that long-term cost of doing the monitoring, uh, having to do the wipe sampling to confirm that breakthrough is not occurring, eventually when breakthrough does occur, you have to reenapsulate it again and then continue the monitoring, whereas you have an opportunity to remove
037and replace it. when you look at the long-term costs, it's actually um over the long term, it's it's less expensive to remove and replace it. And if if funding is available, uh especially that's going to be the preferred approach because then it's just done. It's it's out. We don't have to do wipe sampling or monitoring or reencapsulate it later. It's a permanent solution. >> And if anyone's wondering, I've heard we can still make it look like your 1960s parents den. So, but that's down the road. Sorry. >> If Yeah. If you really like the aesthetics of the old uh the old paneling, might even be able to go back to the uh to the to the dark um the dark oak color or something. >> Oh, don't tease me now. >> Um similar outcome when
038we evaluated um sheetrock or gypsum board walls in other areas. So, we we broke these into two categories simply because they're two different materials. um but the um the PCB concentrations how they got there and the outcomes are similar but because they're in two different areas of the building and they could easily be two separate phases of remediation and it is two separate materials we just evaluated it separately. So, um, but the outcome is the same. Again, when you look at the short and long-term cost, the implications of encapsulating versus removing and replacing, um, it it makes more sense, um, if we can to remove and replace that wall board. Uh, the next one is floor coatings over concrete slabs in uh, locker rooms and the coach's offices. So these um these are affected kind
039of the same way as the paint on the walls, you know, in the gym and the ancillary spaces. They've absorbed PCBs from the indoor air and classified as remediation waste. So there's a couple of options for how to deal with this. Um encapsulation is a viable option. It's regulatory compliant, but these are wear surfaces. They get a they get a lot of wear and tear. It's going to be exposed all the time, people walking on it. When you do encapsulation of these, you have to use a twocolor contrast coat and so that you have a wear indicator of when the encapsulation is starting to wear down and needs to be replaced. And then you have the long-term monitoring component. Again, uh we did some substrate sampling, which means we uh did some small cores of
040of the concrete and took off the top layer with the coating and um had the u underlying masonry materials tested for PCB concentrations. And those were similar to the stage. They were hitting that unrestricted use cleanup level. So the thought here is that we can remove the coating by scarifying it down to a clean concrete substrate and then recotating the floors. Um the other option here, the more extreme option is to demolish and replace the concrete slabs, which is just not practical feasible. Yes, it could be done uh and it would be regulatory compliant, but it would be much more costly. It's just not practical. Uh so where we landed with this is uh scarifying uh the coatings off uh down to a clean masonry material. So that has two benefits. One is um if
041we hit the unrestricted use cleanup level uh then there's not long-term monitoring. And even if you don't hit the unrestricted use cleanup level for some reason, you're still getting a large quantity of contaminated material out of the building, which is is just better in every way because even if you didn't hit the unrestricted use cleanup level on the concrete, if you were close to it at a couple parts per million, your encapsulin is going to be that much more effective, last that much longer before recoding. So, it's just a better approach all around. And when you look at the short and long-term costs, it makes sense to try to remove that coating. Uh kind of a similar outcome for the floor coating in the the maintenance area. This is in um uh these are this
042is actually just an air compressor pad. You can see the coating in the bottom right there. The pads are not coated, but the the floor on the bottom right is uh and this is back in the uh the maintenance area outside of Jeff's office back there. Um similar options and similar outcome for the evaluation. We think the best approach is to scarify um down to a clean concrete substrate. Um there are several small utility rooms throughout the building um that have the similar a little bit different but similar appearance a gray um floor coating over the concrete. And we looked at the same options there and came up with the same uh recommended alternative which is you know get as much material out of the building as we can try to get to that unrestricted
043use clean you know um unrestricted use cleanup level uh try to eliminate the need for uh long-term monitoring of that material and eliminate the need for potential reenccapsulation down the road. So again, when you when you look through the details of the EKA, yes, these preferred alternatives that we're highlighting here are more expensive in the short term, but they the general trend is that when you look at the long-term costs, they are actually lower and they're more permanent solutions. Uh next, we wanted to look at the uh HVAC duct work. Uh this is a picture of one of the the inside of one of the ducts from the D-wing. Actually, you have interior lined duct work there. And as you can see, there's uh quite a bit of um uh dust accumulation in there. Uh
044so the dust is the dust gets contaminated from a combination of factors. One, it's from deterioration of materials over time. if a little bit of paint wears down or some some PCB contaminated flooring wears down and gets mixed into just the the normal uh uh dust generated in the indoor environment which is a combination of you know deteriorated building material, skin cells, things like that just accumulated dust settles in the duct work um and on other surfaces too but the the dust is um PCB contaminated albeit at low concentrations. So uh the general recommendation here is a complete uh professional cleaning and and uh sanitizing of the duct work uh which would be done by a uh national air duct cleaning association certified contractor. Um there's really not an option to explore multiple alternatives here
045um because removal of removal and replacement of the duct work especially following an HVAC project that was already done is just not a practical solution. It's not even worth talking about. duct cleaning is uh pretty straightforward. Um and that's really the only uh option that we had to recommend here. uh the gym floor uh similar to the stage. Um we you know it's it's a polyurethane coating but we don't have a reason to believe that it was a manufactured uh bulk product based on the concentrations that we saw and that the uh PCB profiles that we saw in the um uh laboratory analysis results. Uh so we looked at the similar alternatives uh to the stage. Um, we looked at encapsulation by adding additional layers of polyurethane and doing, you know, wipe samples and long-term
046monitoring. We looked at stripping down to a clean wood substrate and recoding the floor, which would be effective, um, based on our, uh, preliminary data. But then, um, similar to the stage, you know, we looked, we talked with the school about, you know, where are we with this floor in its useful life? This floor was installed, I believe, in the the '9s. So, it's um pretty old floor. Um we looked at the short-term cost associated with stripping it down and said, "Is it worth putting this much money into this floor when it's only a little bit more to replace it?" And then also, you have to consider that, you know, the stripping process is uh going to take some time. And yes, we do it with uh proper environmental controls in place, containments, negative air
047pressure, all these things. It's perfectly acceptable to do, but it's a very laborious process. Uh there just a lot goes into it and it just doesn't seem worth putting that level of effort and that level of money into complete stripping and recoding of this floor when replacement is not that much more expensive. Um and then the last one this is a carryover also from the prior EKA. So we're not presenting alternatives here because we've already uh talked about and agreed on on an approach in our prior presentation. Uh this is the uh roof deck coating and structural steel coating in the ceiling of the gym. Uh this is going to be an encapsulation. All right. So that's the um content of the ECA. So where do we go from here? Um next steps are uh
048we're soliciting uh feedback from all of you. Um we'll take that feedback and discuss it with the school and with our um DEC site manager. uh confirm that the preferred alternatives are the ones that we still think we should move forward with. Uh at that point um I will uh publish a signed final version of the EKA and we uh will be submitting an interim corrective action plan um for addressing that fireproofing removal. one way or another that um is going to be the next phase of remediation because that approach has already been uh a agreed upon and that material is all bulk product. It has to come out. We don't have a choice. Um funding is um expected to be available to support that work. So, we want to get an interim corrective action
049plan out and get that funding obligated to start doing that remediation uh as soon as possible. you know, at that point, we'll have we'll have uh addressed the remaining bulk product in the school, you know, and um uh it's very important to get that material out because that's that's the material that's really the source of the indoor air issue and the uh primary source that's causing secondary and tertiary contamination to other materials in the building. So, we're going to issue the interim corrective action plan, secure the funding for implementing that, uh, submit to EPA for what's called a risk based approval. And we need that because, um, based on the pilot study outcomes, we can effectively remove all of the fireproofing, but the masonry walls with the overspray, we're not hitting that unrestricted use cleanup
050level. We're very close. We had a lot of single digits and even low double digits. really really good outcome, but just not quite able to hit that unrestricted use cleanup level. Um, and we're expecting to start implementing that interimm corrective action plan uh as this fall. Uh, working on it, like I said, through the school year and into the spring when we can take the gym offline and and deal with all of that. Uh and at that point, while we're starting to get that bulk product out of the building, we're going to work on um uh communicating with the school on uh the best plan for phasing and implementing the remaining targeted remediation items and working on a corrective action plan to submit for approval and um hopefully if it's available um additional funding to
051support those other uh remediation actions. So, I know I said a lot at this point. Um, we're here for questions and answers. If there are any questions, uh, DEEC was not here with us tonight, but if there are any questions related to, um, DEC approvals or, um, you know, we may be able to answer some questions about funding, but if there's any specific questions about funding or how much is left or things like that, we will ask you to submit those questions in writing to our U DEC site manager, Eban, and that's his email address right on the screen if you need it. So, at this point, um, we're here for any questions you have. Well, we'll open it up to the board for anything that may anyone might have questions about. I can speak
052for myself and say that I think you um had a very thorough presentation. I appreciate you walking through both why the red option relative to the other ones. I also appreciated where their arguments were similar from one art one one section to the next that it you sort of summarized things that way. So, that all worked for me and I asked a couple of questions and gave at least one wise guy comment along the way. But, um, >> that's okay. We'll take those two. >> Okay. >> I'm from Jersey. Bring them. >> Um, any questions? I'm hearing none. Andy, anything that we need to do besides >> I just want to um reiterate to everybody that when we do any of these plans um it's submitted to DEEC to Evan. Evan sends us a letter
053saying funding is secure and and and agreed upon and so then work begins and then we get reimbured for that that payment. We do not do any work until we have until we have that letter. So, um, right now there is dollars sitting out there. We are, um, locked and loaded, um, waiting on that. So, I think we're just moving forward on that. Um, I don't, uh, Chris, I don't think the board needs to make any action today or take any action. >> Uh, it's it wouldn't be required, uh, by DEC or or for the I roll or anything. So, like I said earlier, since we're no longer in um emergency corrective actions because you don't have any um current occupancy restrictions, that would be a trigger that would take us into emergency action. So,
054um the correct the interimm corrective action plan that I'm talking about will be posted for the uh the statutoily required um public comment period before implementation. So, that'll be an opportunity for any any further feedback on that. there's no, you know, action required by the board relative to um, you know, the the PCB program or the I rule. >> This is more of a transparency um, exercise and soliciting feedback and and letting you all know what we're working on. >> Mary, do you have a question? >> Um, thanks. Uh Chris, I know we've already approved the roof decking in the gym and how are the encapsulation going to happen, but correct me if I'm wrong, but that monitoring situation will have to continue because of encapsulation. Is that true? >> Yeah, there's there's going to
055be some long-term monitoring. Um, but the as I was talking about with the individual alternatives, the goal is still to eliminate as much uh contaminated material as we can and then there's not um when it's effective, there's not additional long-term monitoring relative to those materials. One one way or another, we're going to be in some kind of long-term monitoring for this school. It's just a matter of how involved each long-term monitoring event is and you know where the potential risks are to have to say reencapsulate a material later. >> Thank you. >> The roof decking was, as we talked about back earlier this year, um you know, we we talked in great detail about the idea of removing and replacing the roof deck versus uh leaving it and encapsulating it later. And even if the
056roof deck was removed, uh, we would have been encapsulating the structural steel and had long-term monitoring for that. And, you know, that combined with the fact that funding was not available at that time to support removing and replacing the roof deck. There were a whole bunch of factors that went into, you know, ultimately uh, presenting to the board and recommending moving forward with encapsulation at a later date. Anyone else with any questions? Hey Chris, thank you very much for your presentation. I think it was uh very very informative. >> All right, thank you. And if there's any questions you think of um after, you know, feel free to email them to Eban and he'll forward them to us if they're for us. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thanks. >> Thank you. We're going to continue
057on with our agenda into old unfinished business for discussion action. And the first item there is rural school community alliance with possible action. Cheryl, you're all yours. >> Well, all right. Well, I'm happy to respond to any questions. I'm I'm not sure what would be most helpful to you at this time. I think you have a a motion that perhaps everybody has looked at for consideration. >> Sure. >> So, let me make sure that we're on the same page with that motion. Um, what I have in front of me here is the Bellis Union High School district board moves to remain with in a supervisory union potentially when a larger governance region to the extent practical under the terms of act 73 signed into law on July 1st, 2025. Is that what you're talking about?
058>> And so there's been a lot of information particularly provided for us for this board meeting. Um, and I hope folks have had a chance to go through that. What was particularly useful for me was um, supervisory union versus supervisory district um, and the definition of those, what we're talking about, what those look like, which are really kind of significant and important relative to the overall. Um and um so >> I I'd be happy to give you a little more background kind of where things are right now with the law and I'm sure Andy can chime in as well. >> So let me do this. Let's say that I have just made that motion >> and that way we can have a conversation under that motion. Is everyone comfortable with that? >> Yes. And I
059think you just may need to project your voice towards the owl just in the center of the room. >> All right. Thank you. Uh so with act 73, one of the major and first steps in it was to create a redistricting task force. I think you know about that. That's an 11 person body, six legislators and five people representing various aspects. a retired superintendent, a retired business manager, and a couple of other people, all of whom have some experience with education in Vermont. The redistricting task force had its first meeting on August 1st. Their charge requires them to come up with no more than three maps of the state of Vermont that would propose to create new school governance units, either supervisory unions or supervisory districts, of approximately 4,000 to 8,000 students. That's the law
060and that's what they're required to do. So, they're accepting testimony. The Rural School Community Alliance has sent documents and will continue to do that. Um, you know, as as as background, Westminster was one of the first towns to join the alliance back in January when it became um of concern to towns people throughout the state, especially in rural communities when the governor proposed the five mega district model. Uh so a number of towns said but this is of concern to us. What does this mean? Lots of schools would be closed. All the impacts that are associated with that. The alliance is now 100 and is really quite active. And so Chris is currently the point of contact for the alliance for the high school. And you can share everything you're getting at any time with
061with all of the all of the board. But the point tonight is that given that the redistricting task force is required to come up with a proposal that would draw new lines that would create new districts, our choice is to propose to the task force that we either stay a supervisory union or we become a merged district. And the profound differences there are, you know, we are currently in a supervisory union and what that means is that we still have town school districts and a union high school under the union high school representing the four towns. If we were a supervisory district, it would change how we're currently structured. All current school boards would be dissolved and a new entity would be created. And the way the law currently reads, members of that new entity
062would be voted on by wards. We've not had that kind of structure in our area before. So the the the alliance's recommendation, you know, and the SU board has already voted a motion like the one you're considering tonight is that um is to is to be on record to say we prefer to stay in a supervisory union. We're willing to talk to our neighbors. You know, that might be Springfield, that might be two rivers. Do I have that right? Two rivers. Two rivers. >> Two rivers. >> Could be southeast. >> It could be southeast. >> Yeah. >> All All of that. And that we're willing to have those conversations to explore it. One, I'll say this personally. One of the I think the reasons that I got so involved from the beginning was my concern
063about people making unsupported assumptions, talking about saving money when there's no evidence that it's there. And so we the alliance keep pushing to say use Vermont specific evidence that show us that this really will save money and and and if it's not doing that and we've got evidence using agency of education data that actually supervisory unions are currently spending less per pupil than the merged districts, especially the merged that were forced district, the forced forcibly merged districts. But all of that is to say, you know, we don't have any idea how this will go. The the the maps that the redistricting task force proposes will then go to the legislature when they reconvene in January. And no one knows how that will go. But in the meantime, I think all of us as schoolboard members
064have a responsibility to be informed, to try to do what we can and to try to make sure that the legislature is involved and in this case, this redistricting task force have access to as much good information as possible. And one part of that is to at least recommend to say firmly that we believe that our kids in our communities would be better off if we stayed in a supervisory union model. uh even if it were larger, although we still must see if that's actually feasible and would do anything any good. So that's more back there maybe than we wanted. But thank you. >> And one piece is if the legislative body does not vote on any of the models presented to them, act 73 stops >> so there's a lot of offramps. So that's
065the first one. So just wanted to make sure everyone knew that. Any more observations or questions or comments? June. >> Um, have we started the conversation with any other schools to see if they're interested um in becoming one supervisory union. I know there was some talk about maybe if we found a school and took the initiative then maybe they would find pity on us and let us >> I would defer to you on >> I have no I have no authorization to speak to any other district so I have not spoken to any other district >> and they haven't reached out >> they Does that answer your question? Jim Ben, did you have a question or a comment? >> I I just wanted to say that I I feel like this is a a major
066issue and one that that I don't understand enough about um to maybe even have an opinion enough to to vote on your motion tonight. Um, but yeah, I'd love some direction if you folks have it on good information um on this topic so that I can become a little better informed. >> So, let me speak a little bit to why I'll be supporting this motion. Um, and and it is in very broad terms. I do appreciate that Cheryl said your point of contact on this, but my level of knowledge, if yours is here, mine is there. So um but I'm learning um supervisory within the context of this conversation um think of supervisory districts and if you've been listening to the dialogue and there's just sort of a magic number of five districts think of
067supervisory districts as really large entities potentially with a single board that oversees like yeah if you think of the state divided into five parts whereas this motion um sets a sub to advocate for potentially yes maybe Act 73 is going to lead us to larger um school entities maybe not five within the state and and it's so this motion doesn't necessarily define exactly what that's going to look like but it acknowledges the legislator's desire to move in that direction and it's a little bit of push back that says yeah but let's still number one maybe maintain a certain level of more local control, but also number two, and it's not folded in this motion, but as Cheryl has said, let's make sure that we're taking action that's going to get the desired outcomes and maybe
068we can get those desired outcomes um through something other than I'm going to use the word mega districts. Is that a reasonable summary? And did I misspeak anywhere there? Okay. I don't know if that helped, Ben, but >> I want to point out >> Ben, go ahead and finish up. >> Yeah, >> I I was just going to say, are there are there other resources that that have uh that you could point me to or anyone could point me to to that I could uh learn a bit more about this topic? >> I want to point out that there's three attachments in our agenda. Yep. >> Um there's a school districts and governance models in Vermont overview which has a really nice couple of tables comparing supervisory unions to merge supervisory districts and supervisory union
069to supervisory district. Um there's also uh what's this one? Community democracy and education the case for voluntary cooperation and supervisory union's position statement. um and a letter uh addressed to the members of act 73 redistricting task force. So if you haven't seen those yet, there's a whole bunch of information on all of those. >> Sounds like a good place to start. Thank you. >> Any other question? Oh, I was just going to say I have a very limited understanding of this, too. I haven't had a whole lot of time to look at it, but my assessment is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that um it's kind of like a handover of local control to potential state control, which feels creepy to me. Um so, yeah, I don't know. But it's >> Yeah. >>
070And but I think that this motion helps to keep it local controlled or more local >> than the five big districts and you know and you know one one massive board that's >> taking care of whatever it is 25,000 kids. >> I want to uh clarifying this motion is not about saying hey we love your plan. It's about saying if this plan happens, we would prefer to remain a supervisory union instead of becoming a supervisory merged district. >> Correct. >> That's correct. >> Anyone else? Let me read the motion again. Well, Union High School District Board moves to remain within a supervisory unit, potentially within a larger governance region to the extent practical under the terms of act 73 as signed into law on July 1st, 2025. Does everyone have the motion in mind? All
071in favor of a motion indicate by saying I or raising your hand. >> I >> And those opposed. And any abstain? >> I think I'll be abstaining. Thank you. So the motion passes with one extension. Okay. >> So I'll be happy to come back anytime should that be helpful. >> Thank you. >> So Chris, I have a question. Do we need to uh give Andy some authority start looking? Do you need that now or or to start talking with whether it's you know Springfield and Chester and Leland and Gray or whoever or >> that may be authorization I need from the SU that's what I was thinking >> and so >> has this has this I'm assuming this conversation has happened at the SU level >> the SU board has already voted >> okay they
072have voted this motion but but that question did not come So maybe we can ask that a conversation >> deliver that or who are our board members? One, two, >> Jamie. Jamie >> and Jamie. Yep. Three. Okay. So maybe you guys can bring that up there as well. >> Thank you, Cheryl. >> Interesting. >> Yes. >> All right. >> Thanks. >> All right. >> Okay. So, committee assignments and appointments. I realize we've been here a while. I know oftent times being here a while kind of kicks that down the road. Here's what I would like to say based on what I have seen here so far. There's a couple of illins that need to happen. I know June, you are interested in buildings and grounds. Yes. Um so I'm going to appoint you to replace
073Rob. Uh Ben, if I saw something from you, I missed it. I apologize, but Rob has an opening on budget. So um do you have any interest on serving on our budget committee? Please say yes. >> This sounds like a setup. >> Listen, I'm there with you. So, the current committee, just so I'm clear on this, just based on what we've got in the packet, is June, myself, Jamie, Paul, and then that would be you. And I think that sounds like a fun group to hang out with a little extra, don't you think, Ben? >> Sure. Sounds good. >> Perfect. Good. >> Um, and as I'm looking further down our listing here, um, warrant signers included, Rob, we have Emily as the alternate. Emily, you want to move up to something other than >> I've
074already done that. >> Okay, sounds good. Um, so >> Chris, >> I've been acting as the alternate since Rob has been gone, so I wouldn't mind that. I'm very close to the SU. >> Okay, you are now the alternate and I think that's all the holes we're going to fill. >> Y what else? >> Chris Chris, I want to point out which I pointed out to Rob, the Jed Foundation board rep is only Paul. It's not me. >> We'll clear that up. >> There's only one and it's Paul. >> Well, good. cuz you're busy anyhow. I So, okay. Everyone good with that? >> Uh, federal funds update. I will be very brief with this. Um, and I'll start with the title funds. That's title one, title two, and title four. Um, just before July 1,
075that's when all those monies become available to us. Uh, we were informed that the Trump administration was freezing title two and title four funds. Title two is I get them backwards all the time, so I apologize. I think this wrong, but title two, I believe, is professional development and title four is safe and healthy schools. And obviously some of those are salaried employees, uh, our restorative practices person, our homeschool liaison, our out of the health and um, um, safe and healthy schools. Uh, professional development has to do with a lot of our curriculum initiatives that we implement for contracted services. We have such learned that those have been unfrozen. The money has been has come to us. Um, our biggest concern is the future. So we just want to make sure people are aware of
076that. Um it's uh those type of times where um the administration says look over here and then something else happens. So we'll get those swings. Um the other one that was a swing just like that was the esser funds. um that back in uh the end of March uh they were frozen uh or not frozen the approved extension on liquidation had uh was halted. Um and then we learned that that was reopened but they would they would look through a different lens on it. Um we were a little little north of a million dollars um in the hole um on on those funds. Um Ed uh working to take a round peg, put it through a triangular hole to come out with a cube uh was able to secure just over 600 about $67,000 of
077of those funds. So, uh, the SU will need to determine, uh, what that, uh, special assessment will look like. So, that's forthcoming. uh and we we need to decide that because um there's the do you close it out in FY25 which would impact surpluses um or do you put it into FY26 which is our current year and you run a negative. So those are kind of the two approaches right now. our auditors are in right now. So, it's kind of like we're trying to um get that decision, but the SU board does meet on the 20th and so um we'll be bringing it to the SU board. >> Thank you. Any questions for Andy relative to federal funds update. Thank you. Um we have recreated 90 staff CVA update. June, is that yours? >> Yes,
078it is. So, um, I apologize. I just realized that I should have sent you the factfinders report prior to this meeting. Um, and I will to anybody that wants it, but we received the factfinder um, report on July 28th. Um the board met um on the 6th and then we had a joint meeting on the 7th and um the factfinder I think it's safe to say that the factfinder report was kind of a shock to both parties. It was a surprise to both parties. However, um both parties agreed with it. So I can read you the summary of recommendations that was signed. Um so we need to vote yay or nay um on this and um all of the boards have to and the union has to vote yay or nay but both parties agreed
079to go with the factfinders report. So, let me read what they uh the summary of recommendations that was signed. Um the recommendation of wages increases. The factfinder recommends that the board provide a 4.63 increase to each step for all the unit positions in FY26 retroactive to July 1st of 2025. a 3.5% increase to each step for all unit positions in FY27 and a 3.5 increase to each step for all units positions in FY28. Recommendations on classroom coverage substitution pay. The factfinder recommends that the parties adopt the following language which is 94. Pair of professionals who volunteer to substitute for an absent teacher shall receive regular substitute teacher pay or their own rate of pay, whichever is higher and premium pay at the rate of $3 per hour with the minimum payment of one hour. And
080recommendations on hazard pay. The factfinder recommends that the party should increase to the premium pay provided pursuant to article 9.5 from $1 per hour to $1.50 per hour. Recommendations on longevity retirement incentives. The factfinder recommends that the parties adopt the association's proposal providing employees with 20 combined years of service within the district that makes up Windam Northeast Supervisory Union with a stipen of $5,000 upon retirement. Recommendation on paid holidays. The factfinder recommends that the parties increase the number of paid holidays for calendar year employees from 10 to 11 and for school year employees from 7 to 8 by adding the Veterans Day holiday. Recommendations on sick leave. The factfinder recommends that the party increase the annual sick leave credit for school year employees to 12 per year. And Cheryl is the head of our negotiations
081team. She signed it. And Tara Daryl is the um head of the WNEA and she signed it as well. So, I'm asking for your approval to your vote on it so that we can move forward with the CBA and and make the um bookkeeping office happy with being able to implement it before the first pay period. >> What is our timeline for acting on this? uh if you were to act tonight because this was an added item, you'd still have to ratify it at your next meeting, but it would allow us to uh move forward. Um other than that, if we are um we do have a a full copy, we received it late over the weekend um of the edited CBA marked up new new stuff which we could get out and then we
082would need a special meeting because we do need you to ratify it. But if we ratified it on the if if we took this for information and acted it on it at a meeting on the 25th, was that >> that's too late. >> Too late. Okay. >> We would we would need a special meeting before August 20th. >> Wow. >> So, is there anyone that is not comfortable with us taking action on this in today's meeting? >> J, would you like to make a motion? I make a motion that the Bellis Junior High School approve the factf finders committee recommendations um of the negotiation team for the boards >> support staff >> staff. >> Uh does everyone have the motion? Does anyone have any questions about the motion? Is there any opposing is sorry Chris
083is there any opposing position that I should be aware of? >> Um nope. Both parties agreed to the factfinders report which is this tenative agreement is a summary of what the factfinders report says. >> Thank you. So these what Junior read to you would be inserted or edited into the CBA and then all we're also doing is just cleaning doing some syntax and and some grammar. >> So you know that's all that's going on right now. It we're not making any major changes you know for that purpose. >> Is everyone ready for the vote? All in favor of the motion to approve the summary of recommendations by the factfinder for the support staff collected bargaining agreement as presented by June. Please indicate by saying I or raising your hand. >> I those opposed the extensions.
084Um, one more thing. Does anybody want the factfinders recommendations, the full report? >> Junior, send it to me, please. >> Yep. >> Yeah, I would like it to. >> Me, too. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. here now to um the new item 9E which it says board member matter but again for anyone that's still here it's actually a former board member matter just for whatever that is worth to folks um and we will um be having this conversation in executive session. Can I have a motion to go into executive session? Make the motion we go into executive session for a board member matter where premature knowledge of of the discussion would put the board at risk and invite the superintendent >> and principal or superintendent only. >> Um you haven't had the
085principal in during these these. >> Okay. So, superintendent with that and but I would >> and legal counsel legal counsel is going to be joining us and so when they do join if we could add them. >> Yeah. >> Perfect. >> Everyone have the motion. >> Should we say goodbye to Kelly? >> Kelly. Thank you for all that you do. >> Thanks, Kelly. >> All in favor of going in executive session as indicated by the motion state by saying I. I. a hour and a half time break for this. >> Andy, don't forget to stop the recording. opening your mouse. Um, so we are back out of executive session and no action will be taken um coming out of executive session. So at the 3 hour and 10 minute point um we are now at
086director's comments. We'll start with Mary and move around this way and then to Mary. >> Thanks Chris. Um my comment of course is about the start of school. I wish everyone a wonderful start of school, but I'd like to speak to the Athens people and say we sure would like a member from your community on this board. Thank you. >> Just what a wonderful driveway we have. >> Very impressed. >> Um I want to I want to recognize the amount of work that so many people did for us to be so well informed on so many things at this meeting. Um, we put in three hours plus, but there were a lot of hours that led up to this and I'm really appreciative and I'm super excited about the upcoming school year and uh and
087getting to see this campus all alive again. >> I don't really have anything. >> Uh, nothing. Thank you, >> June. >> I'm all set. Thank you. the the only thing I I would like to say to the to the board is um you know I abstained from that one vote you know related to the uh the state consolidation and I just don't know enough about that issue and while I'm I'm very much in favor of uh you know keeping local schools and and specifically the union high school um you know the administration piece is the part that I'm I'm less clear on you know what the best direction is going forward. So, I just wanted to let people know where I stood on that. >> Completely valid. Thank you. All right. Um, and I have
088nothing to add at the 3 hour and 12 minute mark. Um, date and time of next meeting, we are looking to have a buildings and grounds committee meeting. Um, I believe 11 + 14 puts us at 25th. >> Yes. >> August 25th, 4:30. Does that work for folks? um anticipate a walk around so we can go take a look at all of the great work. Um and then back here at 6 PM for a meeting that I hope is far shorter than this. Um so August 25th, 4:30 buildings and grounds. By the way, everyone's invited to come to buildings and grounds. And then >> and so uh can can we just add that we also have the all boards meeting on August 20th and if board members are available we would encourage you to >>
089supervised reunion boards meeting >> 6 p.m. it'll be in the library. >> Are we back to two meetings a month? Well, no, but um if we find out that we don't have enough for an agenda, which again the standard give me your agenda items, I anticipated that we might need to take action when I when I put this together on a piece of lawn equipment, but we may not need to act on that. And so if we don't have agenda items, then it will just be building. >> We have ratify the >> Yeah, we'll have to ratify the um the CVA, too. There's a there's just a back to school bash happening for central place. I don't know what time it ends, but I feel like it may happen. >> And Chris, on the for
090the buildings and grounds, uh can we certainly have uh Kelly, Jeff, and Rob there also, please. And if Andy would, you know, like to join us, certainly. >> Sounds good. And um we'll meet at the front of the building. >> Perfect. >> For starters, >> thank you. >> Um and it is 9:14. Yikes. We're journed time. Hi, Kevin.