The Town of Needham’s Public Building Committee and School Building Committee on Nov. 10 reviewed updated designs and schedule for a proposed middle‑school project and narrowed the practical options to Pollard or DeFazio sites while discussing major cost, permitting and scheduling risks.

The committees heard that the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) will participate differently depending on site selection: building on the existing Pollard site keeps the project within the same parcel and allows MSBA participation for demolition and certain site work, but building at DeFazio would likely exclude MSBA participation for demolition and field improvements. Presenters cited MSBA’s published cap (described in the briefing as $42 per square foot for certain demolition/reimbursement components) and estimated demolition and related markups at roughly $6.6 million for DeFazio versus about $4.1 million for Pollard; the team said the town would likely be reimbursed only "somewhere around 42%" on eligible elements.

Project planners outlined program tradeoffs: a renovation/addition approach preserves roughly 450 seats (current capacity ~434), while full new construction could accommodate about 700 seats and more fully meet the district’s educational plan. Committee members and staff also discussed auditorium sizing (options cited included approximately 450, 750 and previously considered 1,000 seats), parking impacts and zoning requirements; staff said the zoning table treats auditorium parking roughly as one car per three seats and that shared‑use/time‑of‑day assumptions reduce the peak parking required (the program target cited was about 260 parking spaces).

Several regulatory and permitting steps could affect the schedule and the town’s reimbursement exposure. Staff explained that building at DeFazio would require a memorandum of understanding with Parks & Recreation, a state Article 97 legislative approval (because DeFazio is in recreational use), and a NEPA review; the team said NEPA cannot be initiated until design‑development drawings exist and estimated that the earliest the NEPA process could start under the current timeline would be 2027. The presenters warned that, while MSBA can approve a project scope and budget that defines a maximum reimbursement, MSBA will not sign the project funding agreement (and release reimbursement) until NEPA and other jurisdictional approvals are complete, leaving the town temporarily responsible for design and engineering costs.

To keep the project moving, staff proposed a two‑step construction manager‑at‑risk (CMR) procurement: an RFQ/prequalification to be issued in late November, a December briefing, SOQs due in mid‑December, and shortlist/interviews in January with final selection in February if the schedule holds. The presentation included a $245,000,000 construction estimate used to set qualification thresholds and a $150,000 preconstruction fee for the selected CMR through schematic design. Committee members debated whether to set a single upper project limit (e.g., $250 million) or a range (e.g., $200–240 million) in the RFQ to balance bonding capacity concerns and encourage smaller firms or joint ventures to respond.

The committees also discussed interdepartmental politics and tradeoffs: Parks & Recreation representatives said they are not in favor of building at DeFazio and questioned whether a land‑swap could be made equivalent (they emphasized usability of fields rather than acreage alone). Members noted that achieving agreement among the school committee, parks and rec, and select board — plus satisfying Article 97 and NEPA processes if DeFazio were chosen — will be central to any path forward. Key near‑term dates noted in the meeting: the team expects a cost estimate around Nov. 21; an informational public meeting at Pollard was scheduled for the 17th; the SBC plans to vote on a final PSR submittal at its Dec. 8 meeting; and staff aimed to submit the PSR by Dec. 18 to keep the project on the MSBA calendar.

What’s next: the team will respond to MSBA’s PDP/PSR comments, finish the estimating runs, finalize RFQ language and timing for the CMR procurement, and continue inter‑board discussions (including a town‑wide public meeting) in the coming weeks. The committees emphasized that site selection hinges on whether the town accepts the reimbursement and permitting risks attached to DeFazio or prefers the more straightforward MSBA participation path at Pollard.