Millis building committee recommends AR‑4A addition‑renovation to separate middle and high schools

The Town of Millis School Building Committee voted unanimously Jan. 22 to recommend AR‑4A — an addition‑plus‑renovation option that would add a new middle‑school wing and gym while renovating the existing high‑school areas — as the committee’s preferred option to submit to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).

The vote followed design and cost updates from the project team and a review of how MSBA eligibility rules and caps affect potential reimbursement. Committee Chair Rich (Rich’s last name not specified in the record), moving the recommendation, said, “I bring forward a motion that we approve the 4 a renovation project, to bring forwards to the select board.” The motion passed with votes recorded for Jim (yes), Diane (yes), Mark (yes), Denise (yes), John McDonough (yes) and Rich (yes). The committee will ask the School Committee and Select Board to endorse the recommendation before the project team files the Project Scope and Return (PSR) with MSBA.

Why it matters: The AR‑4A plan is designed to meet the project’s educational program goals by creating distinct middle‑school neighborhoods, new STEAM and science spaces and a regulation‑sized gym while keeping shared services (auditorium, cafeteria) at the building core. School administration argued the option best addresses classroom overcrowding and special‑education and English‑learner space needs that smaller renovation schemes would not solve.

Design highlights and school rationale Chris (design team) walked the committee through the AR‑4A floor plans, showing an addition on the south side of the building that includes a new gym, multiple classrooms sized to MSBA standards, and a counseling center created by infilling the existing two‑story boiler room. Chris said the addition “surrounds the core of the school and adds the gym and creates new space within the gym,” and noted that the schematic can be refined in later design phases to optimize where the middle and high school functions sit within the addition and renovated portions.

School Administrator Bob (role given in the record as school administration) told the committee the AR‑4A layout best fits the district’s educational program: it creates separate middle‑school neighborhoods with adjacent student services, embeds special‑education and English‑learner spaces into grade‑level teams, and provides flexible, supervised common areas usable for whole‑grade meetings and adaptive PE. Bob said that smaller renovation options left many classrooms undersized by MSBA guidelines and would not meet long‑term educational goals.

Accessibility, traffic and security Design and operations questions from members focused on accessibility, traffic flow at parent drop‑off, and building security. Chris confirmed the plan includes an elevator in the existing building and a second elevator in the addition, and said first‑floor paths would be level to allow flat transitions to new construction. On traffic, Jeff (project consultant) said a traffic impact study will be completed in schematic design and suggested options such as separating bus and parent lanes; he added many high‑school students drive and park in the lower lot, which will remain part of circulation planning.

On security, Chris described a layered approach of controlled vestibules, card or buzzer access after arrival windows, cameras and site signage. “No visitors arrive anywhere except for the main entry,” he said, describing a double‑vestibule strategy that keeps non‑school visitors routed to a single check‑in point.

MSBA eligibility, reimbursement and cost context Jeff explained how MSBA eligibility rules and recent program updates affect estimated town cost. Key points presented to the committee were: - The district’s baseline socioeconomic reimbursement factor shown was 53.53%, but after accounting for MSBA caps and ineligible items the project’s effective reimbursement typically falls into the high‑30s to low‑40s percent range. - The MSBA updated building and site caps effective Jan. 1; Jeff used $586 per square foot for building costs and $59 per square foot for site costs when updating estimates. - AR‑style addition‑renovation options were modeled with a 2% ad‑reno incentive assumption; the effective baseline reimbursement after that assumption was presented in a 56–58% range before caps and exclusions.

The team gave approximate total‑project impacts to the town for comparison: the AR‑5/AR‑6 addition‑renovation options were shown in the roughly $70 million range, AR‑4A around the $80 million range, and full new construction roughly $112 million to the town after ineligible costs. Jeff also noted an estimated $2,000,000 allowance for lost field use and temporary transportation costs under the new‑construction scenario because the athletic fields would be offline for multiple seasons.

Schedule and next steps The committee recorded the procedural timeline the project team will follow if the recommendation is endorsed by the other boards: file the PSR in February; appear before MSBA’s Facilities Assessment Subcommittee (FAS) in March; MSBA board action (targeted April 30); schematic design and cost refinement over spring and summer; a Project Scope and Budget Agreement in late summer or early fall; and a final town vote and possible special election in the fall. Jeff summarized: the SBC will forward the committee’s recommended preferred option to the Select Board and the School Committee for endorsement; the project team expects to submit the PSR package in February.

Votes at a glance - SBC recommendation of AR‑4A as preferred option: motion by Rich; second not specified in the transcript; vote recorded as: Jim (yes), Diane (yes), Mark (yes), Denise (yes), John McDonough (yes), Rich (yes). Outcome: approved (unanimous among present SBC members). - Vertex invoices: the committee approved a Vertex invoice for $13,222.00 (November) and a second invoice for $9,040.50 (December). Both motions passed unanimously. - Minutes and procedural votes: the committee approved Nov. 13 meeting minutes; other minutes from meetings without quorum were not approved because no official meeting occurred.

What the committee did not decide The committee’s endorsement is a recommendation to the School Committee and Select Board and is not a final contract or town funding decision. The MSBA must still review the PSR and confirm eligible costs and reimbursement. Final scope, materials, mechanical systems (for instance geothermal or full all‑electric), and the final price for the warrant to voters will be set in schematic design and by the Project Scope and Budget Agreement with the MSBA.

What to watch next The SBC will ask the School Committee and Select Board to record endorsement votes before the PSR submission window in February; the MSBA review process and the June–August schematic work will tighten estimates for a fall presentation to town meeting or a special election.