Medford building committee approves minutes and invoices, hears MSBA funding and schedule update
Loading...
Summary
The Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee on April 15 approved March minutes and invoices and heard a project-team update on the feasibility schedule and how the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) determines eligible/ineligible costs and reimbursement caps, including key per-square-foot limits.
The Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee on April 15 approved its March 23 minutes and three March invoices and received an extended update from the project team on the schedule for the Medford Comprehensive High School project and how the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) treats eligible and ineligible costs.
The committee voted to approve the March 23 minutes (motion moved by Brian Hilliard; carried by roll call, 9 yes, 0 no, 6 absent) and approved March invoices described on the agenda—$25,000 for a left-field invoice, $90,000 for an item the presenters did not further specify on screen, and $166,206.66 for environmental consulting work (motion carried by roll call, 9 yes, 0 no, 6 absent).
One project-team presenter summarized progress on the feasibility study, saying, “We are about half a little over halfway through the feasibility study,” and outlined near-term milestones. The team reported that the preliminary design program has been submitted to the MSBA and that the preferred-schematic-report (PSR) submission is targeted for June 25. The committee hopes to select a preferred option at its June 10 meeting so the project team can finalize the PSR for MSBA review.
Why it matters: the MSBA’s determination of eligible versus ineligible costs and its reimbursement caps will affect the district’s share of the total project cost and how much Medford would need to raise through a potential debt exclusion. The presenter said the MSBA process uses a 30-11 form to list eligible and ineligible categories; MSBA applies scope and funding caps and reduces the project cost basis by excluded items before calculating the reimbursement rate.
Key funding rules and figures provided by the project team included a building cost funding limit of $605 per gross square foot for eligible building area, site-work reimbursement of up to $73 per eligible gross square foot, and a demolition figure discussed at $42 per square foot (with the presenter noting demolition-related rules vary by circumstance). The team emphasized that asbestos abatement costs are treated as ineligible. The presenter also described soft-cost caps (MSBA caps soft costs at 20%; the project team used 25% as a planning marker) and per-student caps the presenter listed for furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) at $1,915 per student and for technology at $1,570 per student.
The project team noted MSBA incentive points (for maintenance, energy efficiency and indoor air quality among others) can raise a district’s reimbursement percentage; the presenter said the team expects to score strongly on energy efficiency and indoor air quality but cautioned that incentive points and final funding levels will be confirmed later in the review process and ultimately in the project funding agreement.
Committee members asked whether publicly circulated timelines showing construction in 2028–2030 were overly optimistic; the project team said some options’ phasing may extend past 2030 and that the team will present more detailed phasing and move-in/landscaping timing at a future meeting. The presenter also said that more accurate estimates of MSBA-reimbursable amounts will become available only after MSBA returns comments on the PSR submittal and the project team completes schematic-design estimates.
Next steps reported by the project team included an April 27 building-committee meeting to review inputs; a May community forum and a May 27 committee meeting to review alternatives and updated costs; a June 3 community forum; the June 10 committee meeting to select a preferred option; and a June 25 PSR submission target to seek placement on an August MSBA board review. The presenter said the project team will prepare mock 30-11 forms once PSR estimates are available to show where ineligible costs may land and to help the committee understand the likely MSBA reimbursement.
The meeting was held remotely and recorded; the committee reconvened for a community forum immediately after the business meeting.

