Blackstone–Millville committee hears master plan as consultants flag $97.8M high‑school estimate and MSBA next steps

Consultants told the Blackstone–Millville regional school committee that the district faces three core challenges — aging facilities, declining enrollment and curriculum shifts — and outlined next steps should the committee choose to seek state assistance from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).

"We're projecting out somewhere in the range north of $45 million over 20 years just to keep the buildings as they are," the lead presenter said, adding that a more extensive scenario across planning horizons approaches roughly $60 million. The presentation estimated a planning‑level cost for a new high school at about $615 per square foot, putting a full new‑build scenario “just under $98 million,” with an anticipated MSBA participation around 53.8 percent in the planners' model.

Why it matters: The MSBA offers substantial grant aid for eligible school construction projects, but districts must clear several administrative and programmatic hurdles. Consultants described the Statement of Interest (SOI) as a non‑obligatory, early administrative filing that tells the MSBA the district seeks help; acceptance into the program would open a 270‑day window to move into a feasibility study and later public referenda on local financing.

The presentation combined district surveys, a demographic projection and a facilities assessment. Survey responses found consistent praise for staff and communication but widespread criticism of building conditions: broken windows, failing heating systems, lack of air conditioning and limited classroom technology. The team also pointed to code and accessibility gaps, including auditorium and exit‑door issues at the high school and accessibility deficiencies at JFK.

On enrollment, the demographer projected about a 10 percent decline in school‑age population over the next 10 years, driven by an aging local population and the outflow of young adults. Consultants cautioned the projection would be updated if significant housing developments are reported to the demographer; they said an example 35‑unit subsidized project could add measurable student counts if reported and built.

Consultants outlined multiple grade‑alignment scenarios — four, three and two‑building models — noting tradeoffs. A three‑building plan would concentrate middle and high students but could leave insufficient athletic‑field capacity; a two‑building plan could yield steadier enrollments but could require reusing or abandoning existing school sites. Several committee members asked whether some scenarios would leave Millville without a school; planners said that is possible under certain alignments and would be a politically sensitive decision requiring town approval.

Immediate safety work: Committee members pressed the group about asbestos at the high school. The presenters said a Phase‑1 remediation — sealing or replacing compromised ceiling tiles — has been completed and a licensed abatement consultant engaged, but that the sprayed‑on fireproofing material containing asbestos will ultimately require larger reconstruction work. "Eventually they're going to say the fact that you have new ceiling tiles there ... you have to get rid of the asbestos period and that's going to be a multi‑million‑dollar project," the presenter said.

Finances and local share: The team estimated a feasibility study would cost roughly $500,000–$700,000; that study typically requires a local appropriation and could be financed as a short‑term bond. The consultants said that if MSBA participation is later approved, eligible feasibility costs roll into the larger grant calculation; otherwise the local share for the study would be a near‑term expense. Presenters also warned that MSBA can net out prior grant proceeds in some circumstances (which would lower the state share of a future project) and that towns should plan worst‑case scenarios when modeling tax impacts.

Next steps: The committee scheduled a public hearing next Thursday at 5:30 p.m. on whether to authorize the administration and school committee to submit the SOI. Presenters emphasized that filing an SOI is not a vote to spend money; it is an administrative step that opens the MSBA process if the authority invites the district to proceed. Several audience members urged moving the hearing time to improve public participation; committee members noted a Zoom option and livestream would be available.

The meeting closed with a motion to adjourn; no votes were recorded on submitting the SOI or on construction funding. The school committee and administration will likely need separate town votes later in the MSBA process if the feasibility study and any subsequent construction plan are approved.