Triton facilities subcommittee reviews $152M renovation concept, weighs MSBA trade-offs

The Triton Regional School Committee Facilities Subcommittee on Thursday reviewed a conceptual renovation and addition package for the Triton campus that designers estimated could reach about $152 million in today’s dollars.

Brian Perry, the subcommittee’s architect/designer (presenting through Kevin and Julia of the design team), walked members through “Option 7.1,” a refined version of an earlier concept that keeps most classroom footprints in place while rebalancing a two‑story administration addition and a one‑story lobby. Perry said the package is intended as a “Plan B” if the district is not accepted into the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s (MSBA) core program.

“The way I like to think about it is this is not what the project will cost, but it’s what it could cost,” Perry said, describing how the team derived unit costs and soft‑cost assumptions. The presentation placed the existing campus at about 286,000 square feet, added roughly 13,000 square feet in targeted additions (bringing a modeled total near 300,000 square feet) and used a construction unit rate of about $334 per square foot to estimate a midpoint construction cost near $109 million; including soft costs, fees, furniture/fixtures/equipment, modular classroom allowances and 20% combined contingencies produced a conceptual total project budget near $152 million.

Why it matters: the estimate frames two distinct paths for the district. If MSBA accepts Triton into its core program, the state authority will identify eligible spaces and reimburse a portion of eligible costs; but MSBA size and program standards can render many existing spaces ineligible for reimbursement. Subcommittee members noted that the high‑school classrooms average roughly 750 square feet—below MSBA’s typical 850–950 square‑foot classroom range—so a large share of renovation costs could fall to the local district even with MSBA participation.

“This is about control and trade‑offs,” Board member Mike (speaker 6) said, urging the committee not to lose the campus’s two gymnasiums and other community amenities simply to satisfy reimbursement formulas. Perry echoed those trade‑offs, noting MSBA participation can be valuable but can also force reconfiguration or reduction of amenities that the community uses.

What the plan includes: the conceptual budget covers targeted additions, full window replacement and masonry repair, interior finishes, plumbing and likely piping replacement in older areas, new HVAC with added cooling and unit ventilators in classrooms, fire‑protection piping updates, electrical and switchgear work, allowances for temporary modular classrooms during phased construction, and a placeholder for athletic‑field repairs. Specific line items called out during the presentation included an estimated $760,000 for an outbuilding renovation and roughly $4.56 million set aside for field, track and tennis court work; presenters said those numbers are placeholders subject to refinement.

Questions and limits: presenters flagged science labs and other specialized rooms as undersized by modern standards; designers said they had not added new lab footprints and would need to borrow area from other rooms to expand labs, which would add cost. Committee members asked whether site wastewater/sewer work was included; Perry said plumbing estimates allow for some capacity additions but that detailed engineering of the sewage system had not been completed and the extent of required work was not yet known.

Next steps and MSBA timeline: Perry told the committee he expects a formal MSBA recommendation to be made public Dec. 13; if MSBA “welcomes” Triton into feasibility, that acceptance and formal feasibility window would occur at one of the spring MSBA board meetings (April/May/June) and start a roughly 270‑day feasibility process. The subcommittee agreed to prepare a concise public update to present at the Jan. 8 school committee meeting and to have communications ready the afternoon after the MSBA decision is public.

Votes at a glance: the subcommittee approved the Oct. 15 meeting minutes by roll‑call vote earlier in the meeting (motion by Marissa; second by Chair Matthew Landers; recorded yes votes include Nerissa, Caitlin and Chair Landers) and later moved to adjourn by roll‑call (motion seconded; recorded yes votes included Marissa, Caitlin and Chair Landers).

What remains unresolved: the group did not commit to a final funding pathway. The committee characterized Option 7.1 as conceptual and endorsed continuing work to refine costs, seek clarifications from MSBA (including meeting with MSBA program staff named in discussion), and develop community messaging. The subcommittee also recommended further engineering of the wastewater/sewer systems, field‑by‑field analysis for athletic work, and a more detailed classroom reconfiguration analysis.

The Facilities Subcommittee will report to the full school committee at the Jan. 8 meeting and hold further discussions as the district awaits the MSBA decision on Dec. 13.