Southborough finance subcommittee presses architects after new school estimate keeps town share near $78 million

Members of the Town of Southborough Building Committee Finance Subcommittee spent a meeting reviewing a new schematic estimate for the proposed school project, which shows the town’s share near $77.9 million while the overall project budget is about $110 million.

The subcommittee pressed architects and estimators for line‑by‑line explanations, asked staff to confirm recent changes to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) funding calculation and directed the project team to produce a value‑engineering (VE) list and clarifications before the next full committee meeting and the MSBA submittal deadline.

The discussion matters because the committee must present the full project budget to the public at the April 7 budget meeting and to voters at a May 10 special town meeting; the committee repeatedly said the magnitude of year‑to‑year increases in the town budget will affect residents’ willingness to approve the project. “We are really concerned about going to town meeting on April 7 with a really significant year over year budget increase,” a subcommittee member said during the meeting.

Architects and the project estimator described how the change in the MSBA effective reimbursement rate and some refined takeoffs reduced the town’s required borrowing compared with the project status report (PSR) projection. Jim, a project representative, told the subcommittee that two independent estimates (PM&C as the estimator of record and PCM as Arrowstreet’s estimator) were reconciled in a six‑hour reconciliation meeting and “we got to within .045% of each other,” and that the reconciled total is the number to be submitted to the MSBA. He said the team must finalize the 30‑11 estimate and notify the MSBA this week; the group asked staff to seek a short leeway to next Tuesday because Monday is a holiday.

Committee members asked for clarification on three technical drivers: • MSBA reimbursement math: The PFA (project funding agreement) effective rate rose (committee members referenced increases from previously discussed figures such as 39.84 to about 41.26 and an increase in the gross reimbursement rate), and MSBA’s reassessment of the calendar year of the PFA was cited by the project team as the reason for the change. The subcommittee asked the project team to get MSBA to explain the basis of that reassessment. • Geothermal and HVAC accounting: The team explained geothermal well costs are reported within “site” costs per MSBA reporting rules. The estimate shows geothermal utilities carried as a site cost (the estimate’s summary lists a utilities allowance tied to geothermal wells) and the HVAC line that includes geothermal components. The architects said the HVAC figure includes ventilation and other HVAC items in addition to the geothermal equipment. • Hazardous/unsuitable soil allowance and disposal: The reconciled estimate carries an allowance for off‑site disposal of potentially unsuitable or contaminated soils. The team said they reconciled quantities and—after consulting the project environmental engineer—are carrying an assumption that roughly half of the excavated soils in some areas could require off‑site disposal at specialized facilities (a higher unit cost than local fill disposal). The subcommittee flagged that this allowance is a substantial driver of the site cost and asked for clarifying testing and pricing information.

Members also asked detailed questions about changes between the PSR and the schematic estimate. Architects said some items that were previously estimates or percentages (for example, cladding material splits and quantities) were replaced by schematic‑level takeoffs; those refined takeoffs changed quantities and the mix of high‑cost finishes such as curtain wall and brick, raising some line items even as the overall construction cost decreased slightly in the latest estimate. The team also explained that design contingency was reduced (from 15% at PSR to 10% in this SD estimate) and some of that contingency was migrated into specific line items as the design and takeoffs were refined.

Given the likely town bond amount voters will see in the warrant article, the subcommittee repeatedly asked the design team to pursue value engineering that could reduce the town share before the May 10 vote. Project staff warned that removing tens of millions of dollars without altering core program or gross square footage would require removing significant scope; they said modest VE items might save six‑figure amounts, and that taking $8–12 million out of construction would require scope reductions. The committee asked Arrowstreet and the design team to assemble a prioritized VE/alternates list and estimated savings for the full building committee to review on Thursday and at further meetings.

Other procedural and schedule items set by the subcommittee: • The project team intends to submit the SD cost notification (30‑11) to MSBA this week; staff will request a short extension so final numbers can be confirmed by next Tuesday if permitted. • The team will ask MSBA for written clarification of the PFA change and the maintenance incentive point and whether those factors can be revisited. • The architects will produce a VE list and a “post‑it” summary showing projected incentive or rebate amounts (for example, geothermal and other rebates) the committee can use in public communications. The team will also compile alternates priced as bid alternates that could be added if bids produce savings.

During the meeting, participants also reviewed contingencies included in the estimate: a 10% design and estimating contingency (the SD stage number), a 3% construction contingency carried inside the estimate model, an owner’s contingency outside construction (2.5%), and a soft‑cost contingency. The project team noted some reimbursable professional services (hazmat, geotechnical testing, survey, traffic studies) are carried outside the core design fee line and asked whether any could be deferred or carried as alternates; the subcommittee agreed to evaluate those lines for possible removal to show a smaller headline figure for voters while retaining a pathway to add work later through bid savings or change orders.

The meeting ended with two administrative outcomes: the subcommittee confirmed a modest immediate savings of about $55,000 that members identified during the discussion, and members moved to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was seconded and recorded as passed in voice; committee members recorded “aye.”

Next steps: the design team and estimators will (1) seek MSBA clarification on the PFA and maintenance incentive points, (2) finalize and submit the 30‑11 / SD cost notification within the allowable window (or with negotiated short leeway), and (3) produce a prioritized VE/alternate list for the full building committee and the public before the next meetings and the May 10 special town meeting vote.