School panel considers MSBA statement of interest, warns feasibility study and project would take years and cost millions

On March 3, 2022, the Capital Planning Subcommittee reviewed a 20‑year capital improvement plan and discussed whether to submit a Statement of Interest (SOI) to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) as the first step toward addressing long‑deferred work at the district’s high school.

DRA Architects’ representative, Greg Smoly, told the workshop the district has split the work into two tracks: a maintenance‑focused capital improvement plan listing roughly 20 years of repairs, and a parallel MSBA master‑plan track that would study large‑scale reconfiguration or replacement options for the high school. "This statement of interest process that we’re looking to get into is non‑committal and there is no finances attached to it," Smoly said, describing the SOI as a request for the MSBA to assess whether the project merits further study.

If MSBA signals interest, the district would need to fund a feasibility study — a design‑level assessment that Smoly said typically takes 12–18 months and costs in the range of several hundred thousand dollars to near $1 million. The feasibility study tests options (renovate, replace, or reconfigure), produces cost estimates and a recommended approach, and becomes the basis for any later construction request to voters and to MSBA for reimbursement.

Workshop presenters and committee members emphasized the MSBA program can offset a substantial share of eligible project costs if a district advances to construction. Participants cited a commonly used planning assumption of roughly a 55 percent reimbursement rate from MSBA on eligible construction costs, while also cautioning that actual reimbursement depends on program rules and the final project scope.

The group discussed a configuration that would use the Hartnett building for pre‑K–5 and reassign the high school to serve grades 6–12; that option was presented as a way to reduce operating costs and to allow the two towns (Blackstone and Millville) to reclaim and repurpose other district buildings for municipal uses. Committee members said the feasibility study would be the point at which structural engineering, educational programming and true construction cost ranges are determined.

Leaders sketched a multi‑year schedule: the SOI decision is expected at a school‑committee meeting planned for March 10; if the district proceeds and MSBA accepts it, towns would likely need to fund the feasibility study in 2023 (estimates presented at the workshop ranged from $500,000 to about $1 million), with feasibility work completing in 12–18 months and a potential project vote and construction in the later 2020s. The group warned that failed bond votes or program rejections can add several years to the schedule.

The workshop reiterated that the SOI itself creates no financial obligation; only a subsequent town decision to fund the feasibility study or approve a construction bond would obligate local dollars. The subcommittee agreed to form a smaller working group with town representatives to prioritize near‑term repair items from the capital improvement plan while the MSBA track proceeds as appropriate.

The committee did not take any construction votes; the formal action recorded in the workshop was a motion to adjourn that passed by voice vote.