Salem High School Building Committee members met Dec. 3 for a brief update on the project budget and schedule as the team prepares a required submission to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). Margaret, a project presenter, said the submission is due Dec. 17 and that the committee will meet on Dec. 11 to review materials and consider authorizing the filing.

Margaret described the MSBA template that requires four figures: the designer’s estimated construction cost, the OPM’s independent construction estimate, the owner’s total project-cost estimate (including soft costs), and the reaffirmed project budget from the preferred schematic submission. She said the designer’s estimate was rounded to "$3.70" and the OPM (Shawmut Rich partnership) estimate was "$3.81," about a 3% difference that the team will reconcile before submission.

Davida, the estimating-team presenter, said the consultants and subcontractors have broken the Perkins and Will schematic documents into trade packages, solicited multiple subcontractor proposals and reconciled pricing. She described contingencies the team is carrying — an 8% design contingency, roughly 2.25% for general requirements, a 2% construction contingency and 10% escalation — and confirmed that, despite a small scope increase, "We are confident saying that you guys are on budget."

The scope changes Davida and Margaret described include placing the full photovoltaic installation cost inside the construction line (the city requested ownership rather than a lease) and adding a small outbuilding to support temporary athletic restrooms and district storage. Margaret also reaffirmed the project budget as listed in the preferred schematic submission (noted in the meeting as 454,458,158).

Committee members clarified cost metrics and schedule: a figure of about $1,100 per square foot was discussed and identified as a project-level number that includes site work and the additional PV and outbuilding scope rather than a building-only per-square-foot cost. Paul asked which trades were priced; Davida listed site work, structural steel, abatement and demolition, geothermal, metal panels, curtain wall and storefront and said the team sought at least two bids for major packages.

On process and timing, Dominic (present at the meeting) said he plans to file materials with the City Council in January so the item appears on the Jan. 8 agenda; because the bond order requires two separate council passages, staff expect referral to the Administration & Finance committee, a committee report and first passage in late January followed by a second passage in February. Dominic said the team anticipates a special election on May 5 and clarified that the May question will be a debt exclusion (a temporary exclusion of the Proposition 2½ levy limit for project borrowing) rather than a permanent override; a debt exclusion requires a majority of ballots cast (50% plus one) to pass.

Dominic and Margaret said the team plans to post a tax-impact calculator on the building-committee website so residents can estimate individual impacts; both cautioned that two variables remain uncertain and will affect the calculator results: the MSBA reimbursement rate and the bond term (for example, 20 vs. 25 years). Margaret said she hopes to hear MSBA’s confirmation of the total project budget by mid-January but warned the review schedule could be affected by the holiday period and a large number of projects on the MSBA agenda.

The committee did not take any formal funding votes at the meeting. The Chair opened a public-comment period but no members of the public raised hands before the meeting was adjourned.