WALPOLE, Mass. — At a Jan. 14 meeting, the Walpole School Building Committee was told the design-development (DD) estimate for athletic-field work is “just over $2,000,000,” and members voted 10–1 to approve a December vendor invoice package for $1,332,110.80, which includes a $909,194 payment due to Fontaine.

Committee members heard the cost update during a project-status briefing and discussed ways to trim scope if needed before final construction documents. Kate, a staff member for the project, and Joel, a design consultant, told the committee the DD estimate exceeds the earlier feasibility estimate and that the construction-document package is scheduled to be complete on Jan. 21; the committee will review the final package and consider a formal vote in February.

Why it matters: the estimate affects the school project budget and potential reimbursements from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). Kate noted the MSBA holds remaining payments once a project reaches 95% of the estimated grant; the project is currently at about 91% and remains eligible for reimbursement, she said.

Joel summarized the cost movement: “So as of today, we’re at, total cost of, just over $2,000,000, and, we’re working as TapPay works to finalize the design, working to refine, those costs and find avenues to kind of reduce those costs where we can.” Committee members asked whether cost reductions would come from trimming scope or finding lower prices; Joel said both options were on the table and that the team was seeking alternate bids to test competitiveness of subcontract pricing.

During discussion, Miss Galavan suggested removing press boxes and reconsidering permanent dugouts as straightforward scope reductions: “I don’t think we need press boxes. … I question the dugouts because the more permanent structures we put in there the more restrictions we’re putting on the use of the fields,” she said. Committee members raised no formal amendment to the design at the meeting; the suggestion was recorded as a possible way to reduce cost.

The packet presented to the committee listed vendor invoices for Vertex, TAP A (design work), furnishings, testing, and Fontaine’s contract. Kate said Fontaine is currently 98% complete with its contract work and that Fontaine’s current amount due is $909,194. The committee voted to approve the December invoice package, 10 in favor and 1 opposed; Jeff Fisher cast the lone no vote, saying he believed the committee should stop spending on the field design.

Votes at a glance:
• Approval of meeting minutes — outcome: approved; vote details: majority with one abstention (Doctor Kenny). (Motion text: approve meeting minutes; mover/second not specified in the transcript.)
• Approval of December vendor invoice package, $1,332,110.80 — outcome: approved 10–1 (Yes: Mister Frisia; Doctor Kenny; Miss Galavan; Miss Gaositz; Doctor Goff; Jack Fisher; Doctor Hahn; Mister Sinek; Chair (unnamed); Carrie Ruggiero. No: Jeff Fisher). (Motion by Miss Galavan; second by Doctor Kenny.)
• Adjourn meeting — outcome: approved unanimously (motion by Jeff Fisher; second by Jack Fisher).

Discussion vs. decisions: the committee made a formal financial decision by approving the invoice package. Discussion about the field design estimate and potential scope cuts (press boxes, dugouts) was advisory; no scope change was adopted at the meeting. Joel and project staff were directed to finalize the construction-document package and pricing for the Jan. 21 package and return with a final recommendation for a February vote.

Other details: committee members referenced prior budget figures during the meeting — committee discussion identified roughly $20,000 in the feasibility study for field design and about $125,000 allocated for the DD phase — but exact cumulative allocations for field restoration were not specified in the transcript. The committee also reviewed a current reimbursement status with the MSBA (reported at about 91% of estimated grant), which the staff said affects timing of the MSBA’s remaining payments.

Looking ahead, the committee will review the final construction documents and the pricing exercise after Jan. 21; members discussed seeking competitive bids outside the project’s current subcontractor list to test whether outside pricing could reduce the projected cost.