Killam School Building Committee recap: August 17, 2026
6-7 minute read
For residents looking to stay up to date on key town matters, this recap highlights the major takeaways from the Killam School Building Committee meeting held on Monday, August 18, 2026.
Watch the full meeting here on RCTV’s Youtube page.
Review the full Killam School Building Committee packet.
Key takeaways
Killam’s official groundbreaking is scheduled for Friday, September 18 at 2 pm.
Construction bids came in roughly $25M under budget; the committee voted to retain $10M as a tracked contingency and return the remainder.
RMLD is offering the town a rebate of up to $120,000 tied to the building’s Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). The committee tabled a vote pending a September presentation from RMLD’s executive director.
About the KSBC
For those less familiar with the project, you can find more information on the Killam School building website. Per the town website, the Killam School Building Committee (KSBC) is made up of the Permanent Building Committee along with representatives from the School Committee, Select Board, and Finance Department, supported by town staff including the School Superintendent, select Killam Elementary School staff, the Town Manager, Town Accountant, Facilities Director, and Procurement Officer. The committee oversees the new Killam Elementary School from planning through construction and consists of 9 voting members and 7 non-voting members.
RMLD REC discussion [0:17:48]
The committee held a lengthy discussion but took no vote on a proposal from the Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD) involving Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) tied to the new building’s energy systems. Facilities Director Joe Huggins said he wanted the full committee to hear directly from RMLD before any vote was taken; RMLD representatives are expected to present in September.
KSBC Chair Carla Nazzaro outlined the offer: RMLD recently increased its proposed rebate from an initial $60,000 to up to $120,000, based on projected energy use, in exchange for the town assigning its RECs to RMLD for the life of the systems. Nazzaro questioned whether the town might come out ahead and retain more flexibility by keeping and selling its RECs itself rather than transferring them, noting that RMLD resells RECs through a market it partly owns that involves New England energy companies.
Member Pat Tompkins asked how giving up the RECs might affect MSBA and IRA reimbursements tied to the building’s geothermal and solar systems, and whether those federal incentives remain available. Huggins confirmed that solar is no longer tied to IRA funding and clarified that RECs are a separate mechanism from those grant programs, essentially a per-kilowatt-hour payment for renewable generation. He floated the idea of splitting the RECs, giving RMLD enough to satisfy its cap while the town retains the rest.
Project architect David Harris noted that losing the RECs entirely would cost the building roughly nine LEED points, enough to drop the project from Gold to Silver certification, though Silver still clears MSBA’s minimum requirement, which sees no reimbursement difference between the two tiers. Huggins added that Silver is the baseline MSBA standard and that RECs affect only how much renewable energy the town can formally claim credit for, not the project’s other certification points.
Committee member John Coote questioned how much practical benefit the RMLD reimbursement really offers. Town Manager Jayne Wellman noted that RECs typically have a 12-year usable life (compared to 23 years for ReCAL) and suggested that the town explore selling its RECs independently. Huggins said his priority remains building the most energy-efficient facility possible and letting certification land where it may, favoring an efficient Silver building over a less efficient Gold one, while Wellman emphasized that managing RECs will be an RMLD executive director's responsibility, to be presented to the committee directly in September.
Schedule review [0:32:44]
Committee member Kirk McCormick gave a high-level overview of the preliminary construction schedule, noting that the project is currently in the submittal phase. Crews are finalizing fence and trail layouts, adjusting gate placement, and installing a temporary parking lot and walkway to maintain site access. Footings and foundation wall pours are expected between September and November/December.
Asked by member Chris Haley whether the February 2028 target had shifted, McCormick confirmed it had not been adjusted. Superintendent Dr. Henry Turner asked how the temporary parking layout will account for several trees currently standing in the middle of the planned lot, suggesting that signage may ultimately be needed. Huggins said the temporary layout follows the footprint of the future permanent lot, with most trees positioned around the perimeter, and that any trees falling within the paved area are expected to be removed. David Dallaire added that a few trees flagged for preservation on the site’s left side will be worked around, and that RMLD crews were on site that day trimming trees ahead of power line installation; additional trimming is still needed before the site is ready for electrical inspection. He noted the next phase of site work involved pulling stumps and removing roots; Tompkins suggested tackling that work now, before other site work makes it harder to access.
Procurement officer Josh Delaune confirmed the official groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled for Friday, September 18, at 2 pm. Killam Principal Lindsay Fulton noted that additional parking will be needed that day, since staff remain on site until after 3 pm; Huggins said the team will do its best to manage pickup timing and ensure adequate on-site space.
Financial review [0:47:21]
The committee’s financial discussion centered on a significant piece of good news: construction bids for the project came in well under budget. Huggins reported that the original construction budget was approximately $101.5M, while the actual bid total came in at $76.4M - a savings of roughly $25M, among the largest Huggins has seen in his career. Because the committee must notify MSBA by Friday how it intends to handle the underbid, Huggins laid out three options for the committee to consider:
Option 1 (recommended): retain 100% of the savings, preserving maximum flexibility to address unforeseen project issues.
Option 2: retain a portion of the savings and return the rest, rescinding a matching amount of the town’s borrowing through Town Meeting so residents can recognize some savings now.
Option 3 (not recommended): return 100% of the savings to MSBA, leaving the least flexibility.
Members debated how much of the savings on retain. Haley argued for returning nearly all of the money, keeping only a roughly $500,000 buffer, citing the size of the savings and a desire for transparency ahead of the November override vote. Others, including Tompkins, Greg Stepler, and McCormick, cautioned that meaningful construction risk remains, pointing to two significant unknowns still ahead: potentially contaminated or unforeseen underground soil conditions, and unexpected conditions in the existing building once demolition begins. They argued that holding a separately tracked contingency protects the town from having to return to voters for additional funds if problems surface.
Wellman explained that the town has only borrowed a portion of the project’s projected costs so far, using a Bond Anticipatory Note (BAN) rather than a full bond, and will issue a second tranche of debt once final project costs are incurred, rather than the full original estimate up front, and that this approach limits how much of the savings actually needs to be borrowed.
After extended discussion, the committee coalesced around retaining $10M of the savings as a separately tracked contingency line, visible and auditable each month - while returning the remainder to the town/MSBA. That figure effectively raises the project’s contingency from $ 6.2 M to $10M, giving the team additional cushion against the underground and existing-building risks that members flagged. Huggins noted that this structure lets the committee and the public see exactly when and why any reserve funds are drawn down. The motion to retain $10M as a tracked contingency and return the balance passed 7-1, with Haley dissenting in favor of returning a larger share.
The committee also approved a related process change: because the KSBC meets only monthly, members voted 7-1 (Coote dissenting) to designate two committee liaisons authorized to approve routine contracts, purchase orders, and change orders between meetings, and raised the liaisons’ approval threshold from $50,000 to $100,000 to keep time-sensitive procurement decisions moving.
For full details, including financial exhibits and the complete budget breakdown, see page 96 of the meeting packet.
Watch the August 17, 2026 Killam School Building Committee Meeting on the RCTV Youtube page.
