Southborough NHERI finance subcommittee readies final school estimate, flags budget and schedule risks ahead of MSBA filing

The Town of Southborough NHERI Building Committee finance subcommittee met Jan. 24 and approved two routine consultant invoices while focusing its discussion on finalizing a schematic‑design estimate for submission to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).

Committee members were told the estimating teams from Arrowstreet (design) and Skanska (construction management) plan a reconciliation meeting in early February to resolve differences between their SD‑level price assumptions and to issue a final package by the end of that reconciliation day if no substantial changes arise. Jim, the Skanska representative, said the firms are "on track for completion through SD." The group also discussed parallel value‑engineering work, the treatment of geothermal costs, MSBA extra‑reimbursement points, community pushback from senior stakeholders and supply‑chain and tariff risks that could affect the final bond amount.

The reconciliation and the numbers that result matter because the subcommittee must notify the MSBA by sending a project budget email (form 30‑11) at least 10 days before formal submission. The subcommittee discussed carrying three MSBA green‑school/reimbursement points now and whether to include a projected fourth point in the SD submission if Arrowstreet believes it is likely. The finance subcommittee members said the town’s projected share is currently in the low‑ to mid‑$80 million range including geothermal costs, and they signaled concern that the figure will need reduction to make passage more likely at town meeting.

Estimating process and schedule Arrowstreet and Skanska will run separate estimates, then meet to reconcile differences by discussing assumptions (for example, linear feet of footings or quantities of steel). The subcommittee was told that most reconciliation decisions are resolved collaboratively among the two estimating teams and project managers; if parties cannot agree, the project team including Arrowstreet and Skanska will weigh assumptions and may split the difference or adopt the estimator judged to have the better basis.

Value engineering and scoring points Committee members asked that a value‑engineering (VE) list be developed in parallel so the project has identified reductions if the reconciled estimate exceeds the target. Jim said both Arrowstreet and Skanska are developing a VE list so the team can present options quickly if the budget is above the target used for the town’s bond planning.

The group also debated MSBA additional reimbursement points. The subcommittee has been carrying points for maintenance and green‑school performance and discussed whether to report a feasible fourth green‑school point in the SD submission; one extra MSBA point requires a year of documented operations to be awarded, the committee heard.

Community concerns and outreach Committee members reported recent outreach to a small but influential group of seniors involved with the Council on Aging, and said those seniors recorded a straw vote against the project in that meeting. Members described that as an uphill challenge for voter approval and said lowering the presented number would be helpful.

Cost risk factors Members discussed several risk factors that could push final costs higher, including commodity tariffs, higher utility costs and uncertainty about availability of federal incentives (one member referenced the Inflation Reduction Act and said corresponding funding streams are currently uncertain). The estimating teams will attempt to isolate major cost categories such as steel so the committee can examine those line items in isolation.

Site and staging impacts The subcommittee discussed site logistics, including use of NHS fields at the NHERI site for construction staging and the potential need to take fields offline during construction. Committee members raised concerns about detention‑basin design depth near the proposed school footprint and asked Arrowstreet to confirm basin locations and depths to avoid standing water; that issue may affect how many fields can remain available during construction and could change site‑related MSBA‑eligible costs.

Votes at a glance - Approval of Dec. 30 meeting minutes: motion moved and seconded; roll call showed ayes and the motion carried. - Arrowstreet invoice #729900 for $87,500: motion moved and seconded; roll call approved the payment. - Skanska invoice #1323833‑000‑15478‑13 for $5,400: motion moved and seconded; roll call approved the payment. - Motion to adjourn: moved and seconded; roll call approved.

What’s next The subcommittee scheduled reconciliation meetings and backup dates in early February to ensure members have adequate time to review the reconciled estimate before any town‑level submissions. The group asked Arrowstreet and Skanska to finalize VE options, confirm MSBA reimbursement‑point assumptions and provide isolated cost lines for high‑risk commodities. The subcommittee also requested answers about detention‑basin locations and depths for use in outreach to the town’s recreation commission.

This account is based on the subcommittee’s Jan. 24 public meeting and the remarks recorded by committee members, consultants and staff.