Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Renovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Triton facility subcommittee backs Option 7 concept, asks architects for high‑level cost estimate
Summary
The Triton Regional School Committee facility subcommittee reviewed a high‑level renovation plan called Option 7 — adding a new lobby, combined admin suite and reconfigured media/guidance spaces — and directed architects to prepare big‑block cost estimates for a potential non‑MSBA path; a follow‑up meeting was set for mid‑November.
The Triton Regional School Committee Facility Subcommittee on Tuesday reviewed a single, consolidated concept — called Option 7 — that would add a new central lobby with a security vestibule, a two‑story administrative addition and reconfigure media, guidance and student‑support spaces. Committee members agreed to have the architects and staff develop high‑level cost estimates and return to the subcommittee in mid‑November.
Superintendent Brian Forgett said the goal "was, based on our previous months of discussions, [to] come to agreement around a concept" the district could cost out. Kevin of Habib, the design firm, described Option 7 as "a combination of two of the previous options" and walked members through how the new lobby and a small addition would allow the district to consolidate middle‑ and high‑school administrative offices, relocate the high‑school media center and reassign vacated spaces to instructional use.
Why it matters: committee members framed the proposal as a way to improve security, accessibility and programmatic space while avoiding a full teardown. Members repeatedly cited school safety as a primary selling point for the design: a single, visible main entry would let staff better monitor visitors, and an elevator and new circulation would improve ADA access. The subcommittee weighed those benefits against the practical limits of Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) reimbursement rules and existing certified square footage, which can affect whether added space is eligible for state reimbursement.
Key details: architects and staff gave preliminary size and cost ballparks. Early measurements cited during the session included a roughly 4,383‑square‑foot upstairs addition for guidance and student support and an estimated 15,732 square feet that would cover the lobby and administrative offices (both described as preliminary and subject to refinement). At a later point the design team noted the two‑story addition could total about 20,000–21,000 square feet and that a newly configured high‑school media area could add about 7,300 square feet. Committee members discussed high‑level project scale in the nearest millions, with an example range of $10 million to $15 million mentioned as the kind of number they would soon need to test against budget realities.
What was decided: the subcommittee agreed this concept is a suitable "big‑block" design to cost out. Staff noted the district has established a stabilization account currently funded at $150,000 per year that would support design and feasibility work. The architects and staff will produce refined budget numbers and sketches in the coming weeks; the subcommittee tentatively scheduled a follow‑up meeting for the week of Nov. 11, with Thursday, Nov. 14 suggested for a detailed review.
What was not decided: no formal vote to approve a project, budget or MSBA submission occurred. Members flagged that MSBA certification and reimbursement rules could limit how much added square footage would be reimbursable and that further study will be required to determine a final path — either pursuing MSBA partnership or a local, non‑MSBA approach.
Procedural notes: the committee approved minutes from its Oct. 1 meeting by roll call early in the session and adjourned at the close after agreeing on next steps.
The subcommittee will reconvene after the architects and staff provide the requested cost estimates and refined schematic sketches; a working target discussed in the meeting is Nov. 14 for the follow‑up subcommittee review.
