Millis school building committee authorizes submission of preferred schematic report for AR‑4A plan

The Town of Millis School Building Committee voted unanimously Wednesday to authorize the owner’s project manager to submit the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) for the proposed AR‑4A middle/high school project to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).

The vote authorizes submission of the committee’s recommended solution — labeled AR‑4A — after the committee reviewed an updated draft PSR, cost tables and schedule notes. Rich, a committee member, moved the authorization “that the school building committee authorize the owner’s project manager to submit the preferred schematic report PSR to the MSBA for the middle high school project subject to any minor adjustments approved through the chair,” and a roll-call vote recorded unanimous approval by committee members present.

The PSR submission follows a sequence of public reviews: the school building committee’s January 22 meeting, a joint session with the select board and school committee on February 5, and public forums the project team said it had held through 2024. Project consultants told the committee that updated materials — including floor plans, an updated site plan and a cost comparison — would be posted to the project website within days of the submission.

Consultant staff from Vertex and TAP A (project consultants) reviewed the draft PSR with committee members. Eric of Vertex said the website’s subscribe feature already showed “I want to say 7 or 8” email addresses signed up and that the team would send an update to subscribers after the report is uploaded. The project team said they would adjust how the large PDF is published (split or indexed) so residents can download specific sections without performance problems.

On project costs, the consultants presented the designer’s construction estimate for AR‑4A at $98,200,000 and said the public-facing total project estimate currently being discussed is $127,400,000. The team explained that the $98.2 million figure reflects the architect/engineer’s estimate and an MSBA-required tabulation based on dollars-per-square-foot. Consultants said current escalation and pricing assumptions are being carried at 12 percent for this submission and are expected to drop to 10 percent when the project’s next submission is filed in August. The team also noted a 2.5 percent contingency carried for a construction‑manager approach; consultants said towns may elect a different delivery method later, which would change those contingency assumptions.

The consultants described the AR‑4A floor-area breakdown the PSR used: roughly 98,000 square feet of renovated space and about 52,000 square feet of new construction. They told the committee the MSBA participation rate would be estimated later but used a working example of about 40 percent reimbursement while emphasizing that the actual reimbursement will depend on MSBA review and final eligibility determinations.

Committee members raised specific technical items they said they wanted assured in later design phases. One member asked that the design provide for roof‑vented radon piping where slabs are replaced; staff replied that comment had been incorporated in a recent revision. Another member asked whether the project budget included a groundwater recharge detail for downspouts; staff said that detail may be beyond the PSR phase but must be addressed in final design if the project moves forward.

The committee also reviewed the project schedule and next steps. The team plans to submit the PSR to the MSBA the day after the meeting. The MSBA’s Facilities Assessment Subcommittee (FAS) has two potential daytime meeting dates in March (the 12th or the 26th) to review the submission; the town expects to present an executive summary-style packet at that meeting. The consultants said they will also present the recommended option to the town’s Capital Planning Committee and hold an additional community update in late March or April after MSBA initial feedback.

Beyond the PSR authorization, the committee approved administrative items by unanimous voice vote: an invoice from Vertex for $11,054.25 for January services and the committee’s meeting minutes for Jan. 22, 2025. The committee also noted that two recently appointed school committee representatives, Shana Castriani and Robin (last name not specified in the record), have been sworn in by the select board and will be listed on the project “meet the team” materials.

The committee chair directed staff to submit the PSR and to circulate the draft presentation and report PDF to committee members in advance of the MSBA FAS meeting; staff said they will include a table of contents and consider breaking the PDF into smaller downloadable parts. The submission was characterized by consultants as a formal record of the alternatives evaluation and the committee’s recommendation; it does not lock the town into final scope or final cost, which will be refined in the next submission cycle through August.

The meeting closed after setting a tentative plan to reconvene after the MSBA FAS review, and committee members were asked to notify staff if they plan to attend upcoming presentations to other town committees so appropriate posting and quorum rules can be followed.