Committee staff and consultants reported on a reconciliation of the design‑development cost estimates and outlined next steps for value engineering and MSBA reporting.

Tim, speaking for committee staff, said the architect (AM Fogarty) and W.T. Rich each produced estimates at the DD stage, which were reconciled through a collaborative review. “We are very happy to report that the numbers for the scope with the Fano drive approach are, you know, are are below the budget,” Tim told the committee, adding that the team expects the current DD figures to be “at least 7 figures below the budget” though he cautioned that the numbers are a snapshot.

Staff emphasized that the reconciliation process compares like line items and that, if estimates exceeded budget at any phase, the team would pursue value engineering to preserve program and design intent while reducing cost. Tim said a list of value‑engineering ideas exists; some items will be implemented directly, others will be returned to the committee for discussion.

Committee members asked about specific line items. One member asked whether traffic signal work was included in the estimates; staff confirmed traffic signal work is included in both estimates. Another asked whether IT and connectivity work were in the construction budget; staff said IT is budgeted as a soft cost and not in the construction line items.

Why it matters: reconciled, vetted estimates guide the MSBA submission and set expectations for the GMP process. Staff cautioned that the economic environment is volatile and that estimates will continue to evolve through 60/90/100% document stages.

Next steps: the team will finalize the DD submission for the MSBA reporting schedule and continue to vet the value‑engineering list before asking the committee to approve any substantive scope changes.