Blackstone‑Millville committees advance 7–12 grade configuration for high school project

The school committee and school building committee for the Blackstone‑Millville Regional School District voted on June 12 to advance a 7–12 grade configuration for the district’s high school building project.

The decision followed a presentation from DRA Architects and the district’s owner’s project manager outlining four grade-alignment options, preliminary enrollment projections and high-level cost estimates needed for a preferred schematic submission to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). Superintendent Jason Devalco opened the public hearing and said the submission to the MSBA is due at the end of August.

Architect Greg Smallley reviewed four configurations the district has studied — 6–12, 7–12, 8–12 and 9–12 — and described tradeoffs for program, building size and cost. Smallley said the 6–12 option would require the largest new building; 7–12 was presented as a somewhat smaller and less expensive alternative that most committee members favored. Smallley also summarized a staff survey (more than 70% response) in which staff most commonly preferred 8–12 and 9–12 alignments for educational reasons, citing maturity differences and curriculum breadth.

Consultants explained how the team produced preliminary Form 311 cost estimates and distinguished building (bricks-and-mortar) costs from soft costs (fees, furniture, technology). Project staff provided ballpark cost ranges during the meeting: about $120 million for the smallest (9–12) option and about $170 million for the largest (6–12) option, and emphasized these are high-level, early estimates. The team also noted that MSBA reimbursement typically covers roughly 55% of eligible costs but that the reimbursable share and eligible amounts will change as enrollment and design are finalized.

Members and members of the public asked several operational questions. One commenter asked what would happen to buildings taken “offline” if the district consolidated; panelists said that reusing or leasing buildings and negotiating operating-cost splits with the towns would be part of later discussions and that the building committee’s role is to identify those issues for the school committee and towns to resolve. Committee members also discussed whether central-office functions or preschool programs could be housed in a new facility; the consultants noted MSBA will not reimburse for preschool space and that moving central offices would require weighing debt service for renovations or additions against expected annual operating savings.

A school committee motion to select a 7–12 configuration, moved by Jane Reio and seconded, passed in a unanimous roll-call vote. The school building committee then made a similar motion to advance the 7–12 configuration; that motion carried as well with one recorded abstention. With those votes, the architect and owner’s project manager were directed to proceed toward the preferred schematic design and the MSBA submission.

Next steps include refining enrollment figures, updating the Form 311 cost estimate and completing the preferred schematic report for the MSBA submission by the stated late‑August deadline. The committees expect further public conversation and additional meetings as design and cost details are developed.