Concord officials weigh new middle school at South Street site; designers recommend advancing design work despite no state building aid

Concord School District building committee members spent a multi-hour meeting reviewing studies that show renovating the existing Runlet (also referenced in presentation materials as "Renlette") middle school would leave the district with a sprawling, undersized building that fails to meet Department of Education space standards and modern code requirements.

The committee heard from district staff and outside consultants that, with no state building aid included in the governor’s current budget, the district faces steep costs whether it renovates the Runlet site or builds a new middle school at the South Street site. Consultants recommended completing design development now to produce a firm cost estimate and a list of value-engineering alternatives so the board can make an informed decision about whether and how to proceed.

Why it matters: The choice — phased renovation of the existing school or a new build on South Street — affects construction duration, educational program quality, traffic patterns, athletic fields and the district’s capital plan. Consultants and committee members repeatedly raised the trade-offs between short-term affordability and long-term durability and functionality.

Consultants told the committee that the existing building’s structural system (mid-20th-century concrete block construction), mechanical and electrical systems, doors and circulation, accessibility features and some classroom sizes are deficient or noncompliant with current standards. “Most of the parts and pieces got pretty poor grades,” one presenter said while reviewing the technical reports. The team said making classroom sizes meet DOE guidance would trigger deeper structural work — new footings and lateral bracing — that significantly raises cost and complexity.

On the renovation pathway, presenters estimated extensive phasing: moving students into modular classrooms, demolishing and renovating wings one at a time, and multiple 12–14 month work windows for major components (mechanical, roof, kitchen/cafeteria and athletic spaces). Consultants estimated that completing a phased renovation could take roughly five to seven years and that the extended duration would add cost because subcontractors include contingencies for long multi‑year schedules.

By contrast, a new building at the South Street site would allow a more compact plan with a clearer parent drop-off pattern, separated bus circulation, and direct connections between the academic wing and outdoor fields. The preferred South Street concept places the academic bar facing true south to maximize daylighting, locates administration at the main entry, and orients gym, theater and music spaces to provide indoor/outdoor connections. Landscape designers showed one scheme that keeps buses arriving from Conant Drive and parents entering from South Street, while noting a traffic-engineering study will be necessary.

Committee members pressed specific operational issues: where to place modular classrooms during renovation (consultants said modulars could be sited on fields or near the NAR and noted rental cost estimates of roughly $250,000 per year for two classroom modules, based on a recent project), how to handle hazardous materials during phased work, and how the district would “keep the building alive” (ongoing maintenance and short-term repairs) while design work proceeds. District staff asked for a short-term study to quantify costs to maintain safe operations for four years versus a longer wait for funding.

Cost timeline and estimates: Presenters reviewed past cost studies showing a 2017 estimate of about $75.8 million and later estimates that rose (a 2021 estimate of about $104 million and later figures leading to a rounded mid‑hundreds-of-millions estimate). Consultants told the committee the most recent full-scope estimate reviewed was about $164 million and cautioned that waiting four years could add roughly $20 million more through escalation. The team said they would develop a detailed estimate and a robust list of value-engineering (VE) options by August if the project moves into design development.

On sustainability and systems, the team said a full geothermal field at South Street is constrained by site area and that a hybrid HVAC approach (geothermal wells plus air-source heat pumps) could be studied. Presenters also flagged tax-credit availability and current tariff-driven material price uncertainty as variables that affect final cost.

No formal board action was recorded at the meeting. The consultants asked the committee for a “green light” to proceed with design development now so Harvey (the district’s estimator) and other consultants can price the South Street scheme, assemble VE alternates and return with firm numbers for the full board. Committee members expressed divergent views: several favored moving design work forward to get a realistic, affordable price; others said the district must know the tax impact and a reasonable voter target before committing significant design dollars.

What’s next: The consultants’ schedule projects design development through July, Harvey’s pricing and VE analysis in August, and return of a recommended budget in September; that timeline would target occupancy in fall 2029 if the project proceeds. The committee did not vote at the meeting; staff said they will present the design development recommendations, cost scenarios and tax‑impact analysis to the full School Board for a decision about authorizing the next phase.

“It’s going to cost money to keep that building alive,” district staff member Matt said, urging the board to weigh short-term operations costs against the longer timeline for state aid. Building committee member Miss Fox said she had “read this document several times” and concluded the existing building “doesn’t meet the needs of the students currently,” arguing that renovation would likely be a poor long-term investment. The committee set a clear next step: obtain updated cost estimates and traffic and site studies as part of a design‑development phase, then reconvene for a board decision.