Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Schematic Options topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrows schematic choices; anonymous straw poll splits committee
Summary
After reviewing comparative cost estimates and schedule implications for four primary schematic options, the Building Committee took an anonymous, nonbinding straw poll; Option 7 (PreK–4 new construction) received 12 ballots and Option 17 (PreK–6 new construction) 10 ballots, reflecting a close split among members.
West Bridgewater’s School Building Committee reviewed comparative cost estimates, delivery assumptions and schedule trade-offs for four primary schematic alternatives on March 25 and then conducted an anonymous nonbinding straw poll of committee members.
Staff presented the nine MSBA options and highlighted the four the team is prioritizing: Option 5 (add/reno PreK–4), Option 7 (new PreK–4), Option 14 (add/reno PreK–6) and Option 17 (new PreK–6). Consultants explained that total project estimates include construction, soft costs, owner contingencies and assumptions about delivery method; sample totals were approximately $144–145M for PreK–4 scenarios and $173–180M for PreK–6 scenarios under current assumptions.
Presenters said estimates assume a construction-manager-at-risk delivery, a roughly 20% soft-cost allowance, owner contingency and allowances for items such as abatement and site work. They also explained the difference between West Bridgewater’s certified MSBA reimbursement rate (54.79%) and the project’s effective reimbursement rate after MSBA caps and eligible/ineligible cost adjustments, which can reduce the district’s net reimbursement into the mid-40% range depending on eligible scope.
The committee then used anonymous cards to record a nonbinding preference among the four options; staff reported that Option 7 (PreK–4 new construction) received 12 ballots while Option 17 (PreK–6 new construction) received 10 ballots. Committee members described the result as a close split that will require further refinement of ABC phasing (A/B/C options) and orientation choices before a formal preferred-schematic vote.
Two procedural votes were taken earlier in the meeting: approval of March 11 minutes and approval of HMFH invoice #4317 (feasibility payment of $66,000). Both passed by voice vote. Staff said they will prepare and circulate the PSR materials and supplemental analyses (including cost breakdowns for ABC phasing and modular/swing-space scenarios) ahead of the April 8 meeting when the committee plans to take a formal vote on a preferred schematic.
Next steps include a community forum on April 4 and circulation of final PSR materials to committee members prior to the April 8 vote.
