Millis school officials present preferred addition-and-renovation plan; town share estimated $71M–$83M

Diane Germain, vice chair of the Permanent Building Committee and the School Building Committee, opened a June 5 community forum in Millis presenting the committee’s preferred addition-and-renovation option (labeled AR4A) for the Millis Middle–High School. The committee submitted the preferred schematic to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) and is preparing for an MSBA board vote in October and a town vote in November.

The plan is intended to replace the parts of the current middle–high school building the MSBA found most out of date, add new classroom wings and a full-size gym, reorganize campus traffic to separate buses and cars, and create distinct learning “neighborhoods” for middle and high school students while retaining shared spaces such as the auditorium and cafeteria. “We’ve landed on an addition and renovation option, that we believe will be able to give our kids the education they need in the 21st century,” said Bob Milaney, superintendent of Millis Public Schools.

The committee and project team described the option as a cost-controlled approach that reuses as much of the existing building as feasible while adding new facilities where the existing footprint does not meet MSBA standards. Architect Chris Lisonbee of Tapay Architects summarized the design move: “We’re proposing taking that portion of the building off…and then doing an addition where you see the green,” showing a new two‑story addition that would house most middle‑school program spaces and a new gym sized for MIAA postseason competition.

Why this matters: the committee said the existing building faces recurring operational problems—heat on the second floor and periodic flooding—that have interfered with instruction. The MSBA invited Millis into its program on the basis of facility needs, and MSBA participation can cover a significant portion of eligible costs. The owner’s project manager, Mike Quinlan of Vertex, described the current phase as schematic design and said the team will finalize pricing in late summer to prepare for the MSBA and town votes.

Costs, reimbursement and town share

The project team presented cost estimates the forum repeatedly discussed. They listed an estimated construction cost of about $98 million and an estimated total project cost (including furnishings, consultants and other project‑level markups) of approximately $127 million. The team estimated an effective MSBA reimbursement of roughly 35%–44% of eligible costs, which they said would amount to about $44 million–$56 million. Subtracting that range from the $127 million estimate yields a preliminary projected town share of roughly $71 million–$83 million; the team stressed those figures are estimates for planning and will be refined during the fall as schematic design and pricing are completed.

Mike Quinlan explained the difference between hard construction costs and project markups: “The construction costs are hard costs… The project cost markup is all the things like the loose things — furniture, fees to pay consultants, architects, engineers, OPMs, lawyers, etcetera.” He said planners assumed a roughly 30% markup for those items in the current estimate.

Timeline, financing and tax impact

The team said the MSBA process has three stages (PDP, PSR, schematic design). They expect an MSBA board vote in October and a town ballot vote in November. Construction was described as likely to take about 30 months overall, with the addition portion taking roughly 18–20 months and the renovation portion staged around school calendars. The plan emphasizes building the addition first and using it as swing space to avoid or minimize modular classroom rentals.

On financing, staff said the town would likely use a bond anticipation note while construction begins and issue permanent bonds when appropriate. The team noted they are modeling a long amortization (the presenters discussed a 28‑year bond) and had used a 5% interest assumption for planning; they warned actual interest rates and household counts will change the precise tax impact. Town staff noted Millis currently has roughly 3,100 households, and household counts used in the final financing model will alter per‑household cost estimates.

Design and program highlights

- Separation of learning communities: the plan reorganizes the campus so middle and high school academic wings are distinct while sharing central facilities (auditorium, cafeteria). Superintendent Milaney said the separation supports different educational philosophies for middle and high school students. The committee emphasized the shared spaces would remain available for cross‑age activities.

- Science, accessibility and systems upgrades: the plan groups new science labs on the north side of the upper floor to meet current safety and instructional standards identified by the MSBA. The renovation includes accessibility upgrades and new mechanical systems to improve comfort and energy efficiency.

- Gym and athletics: the new gym would be sized to host MIAA late‑round competitions so Millis would not need to travel to another community for some home playoff contests.

- Site work and traffic flow: the site plan separates bus and car circulation, adds dedicated student parking and reorganizes drop‑off points to improve safety.

Enrollment, expansion and operating costs

The team said the project’s MSBA design enrollment is about 625 students and that current enrollment is below that figure. MSBA rules require consideration of future growth; the presenters said the schematic accommodates modest future expansion (they cited about 25,000 square feet of net increase from the current ~125,000 square feet to a projected ~150,000 square feet, accounting for demolition of an existing wing). The presenters said the project team has identified locations where classrooms could be added later with relatively limited structural work.

The presenters said they had not yet finalized an independent projection of operating‑cost changes tied to the larger facility; that analysis will be part of fall work. They noted operating costs are borne by the town budget (not by the MSBA reimbursement) and that new mechanical systems may reduce operating costs per square foot even as the overall facility grows.

Public reaction and next steps

Residents who spoke at the forum generally asked about tax impacts, timeline, enrollment flexibility and classroom sequencing during construction. Michael Kron of Beech Street told the panel he believed the committee had done a thorough job controlling cost and urged residents to consider the state reimbursement when evaluating options. Richard Harlow, Heidi Gilmore and other residents asked about riparian design, phasing, and capacity for future enrollment growth.

The project team said materials and meeting records will be posted on the project website, that they will hold more public forums in the fall (including virtual sessions), and that residents may submit questions by email. The school building committee presented AR4A as its preferred option to carry forward in the MSBA process; the forum served to explain the schematic design, anticipated costs and next steps rather than to record a formal town vote.

Ending note

The school building committee and project team asked residents to review the project website and participate in fall outreach as the schematic and pricing are finalized ahead of the MSBA and town votes.