The potential MSBA approval loomed large over the meeting as members discussed the implications of a favorable decision. A site visit had already taken place, and the upcoming MSBA board meeting would decide if the committee would be invited to proceed with funding. This decision is critical, as it could reduce the project’s projected cost of $173 million, requiring a reevaluation of financial needs and potentially altering the committee’s structure to align with MSBA guidelines.

The conversation highlighted the necessity of preparing two sets of warrant articles: one for moving forward independently if MSBA funding is not secured, and another contingent upon MSBA acceptance. The prospect of MSBA involvement was discussed as a means to expedite site selection and streamline the project due to the groundwork already laid by the committee. The MSBA’s decision is seen as a key factor that could facilitate a quicker resolution regarding site selection, as their findings would likely echo the committee’s conclusions.

A discussion took place around the formation and augmentation of the school building committee. The MSBA requires specific roles within the committee, necessitating additional members with particular certifications, such as MCPO. Members expressed a commitment to reviewing and strengthening the committee’s roster to fill any gaps and meet MSBA’s requirements efficiently. This includes differentiating between voting members and contributors, a task deemed essential for smooth project execution. Emphasis was placed on the need to finalize the committee’s structure and funding proposals to align with MSBA’s timelines and requirements.

The committee also addressed the urgency of completing an educational profile and obtaining local authorization of funding for a feasibility study before a February town meeting. This step is important for preventing delays that could occur if the project were to wait until June for approval. The committee was poised to propose a budget for the feasibility study based on historical data from MSBA, acknowledging the importance of having a solid figure to present in upcoming votes. This budget would be informed by past projects and MSBA guidance, although members were prepared for the possibility of needing to start from scratch if required by the MSBA.

Discussions during the meeting further delved into the financial aspects related to MSBA funding and cost estimations. Historical data from the MSBA website was reviewed, emphasizing the importance of understanding current and future costs, particularly in relation to anticipated reimbursements. The committee members explored the escalation of MSBA costs over a six-year timeline, noting a 4.65% average increase over nearly 15 years. This analysis was made available on the committee’s shared website to aid in budget planning.

The conversation included a detailed examination of cost escalation, particularly when it ceases once a construction contract is awarded. The timing of contract awards and MSBA reimbursement rates is crucial, as delays in design and bidding could lead to financial repercussions for the project. Different approaches to construction cost estimation were discussed, with some estimators locking in prices at bidding time, while others consider midpoints in construction. The implications of these methods are significant for budget management and forecasting, with potential adjustments due to material price fluctuations being a point of concern.