The Pollard Middle School project’s application to participate in the Mass. School Building Authority’s reimbursement program cleared a significant hurdle Wednesday morning when the MSBA Board voted unanimously to move the project along to the next phase of the MSBA’s elaborate funding process.
Submitted in late December for review by the MSBA’s Facilities Assessment Subcommittee, the Pollard feasibility study will now advance to the MSBA’s schematic design phase.
“We got the green light,” said School Superintendent Dan Gutekanst, who is participating in the third major MSBA project of his 20-year tenure in Needham.
“With this vote today, they’ve cleared the way, and now we just simply have to finish up some details with them.”
The MSBA blessed the project’s feasibility study, which calls for the project to be built in two phases. The most recent work by the HMFH Architects design team was dedicated to moving as much of the construction as possible into the first phase to reduce costs and move the project along faster.
That would limit the second phase of work to the construction of the sixth-grade center in what is planned as a 1,335-student Grade 6-8 middle school with a performance center. It will be built behind the current Pollard building, which means the school will continue to operate while the new building is under construction.
The performance center has been the object of criticism from some residents who describe it as a luxury, not necessity. “The auditorium is still part of the program, [though] ineligible for reimbursement by the MSBA,” said Hank Haff, the town’s director of building design & construction.
Contractor selection due in March
The project will advance in another significant way next month when the town plans to select a construction contractor and enter into a “construction manager at risk” agreement.
In late 2025, the state Inspector General approved the town‘s request to move forward under the CMAR approach instead of the more traditional “Design-Bid-Build” process.
The process is favored also when large scale projects involve doing work in the vicinity of an occupied school. Current estimates have the project priced in the $340 million range.
Under CMAR, the town selects a firm ahead of the schematic design phase to provide preconstruction services related to logistics, construction schedule, value engineering and cost estimating. This is done on a fee basis.
A second phase of CMAR occurs after schematic design, when the town and the contractor negotiate a Guaranteed Maximum Price amendment. This sets the maximum amount the town will pay for construction, general condition and fees.
The town conducted its CMAR bid process in December and three finalists are being interviewed this week. The final selection is scheduled to be voted on at the March 9 School Building Committee meeting.
After that selection is made, the town has the goal of completing the schematic review by June and then moving into the MSBA’s next module, “Funding the Project.”
This is the phase in which the town and the MSBA enter into an agreement the MSBA says “defines the project scope, budget, schedule, and potential MSBA participation in the project.”
The MSBA is expected to reimburse Needham for between 20 and 25 percent of the total project cost, or between $60 and $70 million.
Going forward
Town officials were pleased with the MBSA decision. The state could have denied the project at this phase or sent it back for further review. Haff noted “they always condition any and all approvals pending the agreement on scope and budget,” but all town officials the Observer spoke to said this was the best possible outcome.
The project has closely adhered to its ambitious timeline. The plan is to have the project ready for approvals from Town Meeting in October and from the town’s voters in a debt exclusion override election in November.
| Opposition forming to Pollard project Unlike the town process, the MSBA review does not include public comment, so it politely diverted an attempt by the organization Needham Residents for Thoughtful Zoning’s (NRTZ) to weigh in with the state office to oppose the Pollard project. The MSBA received a long letter from NRTZ — the document was unsigned and no names were included, leaving its constituency unclear — dated February 16. It decried the town’s process and expressed “serious concerns regarding the direction, pace, size, scope and price tag” of the project. On Feb. 25 the MSBA wrote to Superintendent Dan Gutekanst and shared a copy of the letter, noting that “the issues raised in this letter are local issues” and requested that the school district respond to the concerns and share the response with the MSBA. — Seth Bauer |
If voters approve the funding, construction would start in 2028, with Phase One completion in September 2030 and Phase Two in September 2032.
Meeting those deadlines requires having the project designed and priced by August, a process that Gutekanst says will include conspicuous public participation.
“The big lift ahead is to continue to engage the community,” he said, a reference to the dozens of community and public meetings held to date and many more to follow.
“It’s a big project. It’s an expensive project. It will have a significant and positive impact on the community for years to come.”
He expects the public process to address, “How can we manage the cost? How can we continue to fine tune the project so that we can make it as affordable as possible.”
At the MSBA Board meeting, State Rep. Josh Tarsky offered a statement of support before School Committee Chair Michael O’Brien spoke on behalf of the town.
“Needham is fortunate to have strong support from our town and community, who share a deep commitment investing in our students and their success,” O’Brien said.
“To date, we have engaged with the community in over 80 meetings to collaboratively discuss this building project.”
There was no formal discussion by the MSBA Board before its unanimous vote to move the project forward.
Save as PDF