Triton facility subcommittee reviews two renovation concepts, asks consultant for refined 'commons'-focused plan

Triton Regional School Committee facility subcommittee Chair Matthew Landers convened a remote meeting on Sept. 13 to continue work on alternatives for the district's aging middle/high school building, and consultants presented two conceptual schemes that would repurpose courtyards and concentrate arts and visitor access around a new secure commons. The committee asked the consultant to refine the preferred option and circulate updated plans ahead of a follow-up meeting scheduled for Oct. 1 at 9:30 a.m.

Why it matters: committee members said the building has "severe needs," the district is pursuing a Plan B in case the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) route does not proceed, and decisions about layout, loading and utilities could drive large differences in cost and feasibility. The subcommittee emphasized prioritizing secure visitor access and program efficiency before pursuing more costly moves such as relocating the cafeteria and kitchen.

Consultant Kevin presented two high-level concepts. Option 1 would capture part of the existing courtyard under a new roof to create a large, secure commons with a controlled vestibule near the drop-off area, downsize the oversized high-school library into a rightsized media center (Kevin said the target for a high-school media center would be roughly 3,600 square feet under MSBA guidance), and cluster arts, maker and shop spaces near the auditorium so public events can be isolated from academic areas. "So we've called that the commons," Kevin said while showing plan views, and added that the commons could be flexible enough to host study halls, small assemblies or recitals while maintaining a secure boundary for the rest of the school.

The second scheme (Option 2) was more aggressive: it would fill in part of another courtyard with a two-story addition, relocate the cafeteria and kitchen toward the building core to improve loading and circulation, and convert the double-height library volume into a flexible black-box theater. Kevin warned that Option 2 would displace some athletics and maintenance-shop functions and requires detailed study of grade changes and potential loading-dock solutions.

Committee members raised multiple constraints and trade-offs. Several members favored spending district funds first to create a central secure commons and improve circulation rather than moving the cafeteria and its utilities, which members noted would be costly and complicated by site grading and neighboring property setbacks. Concerns about athletics were repeatedly raised: relocating the wrestling room, weight room and related storage must preserve ventilation, adjacency to locker rooms and access for trainers, committee members said.

On cost, members discussed high-level ballpark figures. Kevin noted that small additions of the scale discussed often land at the high end of local construction costs; committee participants estimated that an addition of roughly 12,000—14,000 square feet could imply multi-million-dollar costs if per-square-foot pricing reached roughly $1,000, and one estimate offered during the discussion placed the new-addition construction in the low- to mid-teens of millions of dollars as a rough benchmark.

The subcommittee's near-term direction was procedural and iterative: Kevin said he would produce a revised Option 1 that incorporates the group's comments (prioritizing commons-based access-control, preserving or improving arts visibility, and avoiding high-cost cafeteria relocation unless justified by further study) and circulate the drawings for review. The group agreed to meet again on Oct. 1 at 9:30 a.m. to review the updated materials. The meeting also approved the minutes of the Aug. 16, 2024 facility subcommittee meeting by roll call (Nerissa and Chair Landers recorded 'yes'), and adjourned by roll call vote.

What comes next: the consultant will distribute the revised Option 1 materials; staff and committee members will review and prepare detailed questions on loading, utility impacts, cost estimates and program relocations (especially athletics). If the project scope or budgets become infeasible, the subcommittee indicated it will continue to evaluate MSBA options and refine a realistic "plan B."