Brockton officials outline plan for new high school, estimate modest tax impact

Project leaders and school officials on Tuesday laid out a phased plan to renovate or replace Brockton High School through the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), describing the building concept, projected schedule and an estimated tax impact that organizers say would be modest when spread over the proposed debt-exclusion period.

Kevin Sullivan, the project director from Left Field, told attendees the MSBA process offers a rare reimbursement opportunity but that the state covers only eligible costs and applies caps that reduce the effective grant. "The MSBA has funded more than 17 billion in statewide school construction since 2004," Sullivan said, and he added that Brockton’s effective reimbursement rate is likely to be closer to "about 54% conservatively," after MSBA caps and ineligible items are applied.

Sullivan walked through the project’s financial model and a city debt chart that shows a window of capacity when a large pension obligation pays down in 2036. He said the team’s headline number for homeowners is small in the near term: "The average anticipated tax impact for a single family house starting in 2027 is about $8.24 a year," he said, with higher intermediate-year payments and a 10-year average roughly $188 per year under the proposed structure.

Principal Kevin McCascal described the education rationale for the project, calling Brockton High a center of the community and arguing the existing building—opened in 1970—falls short of 21st‑century instructional standards. "Our community doesn't look like any of those surrounding communities," McCascal said, and he urged a facility that supports safety, wellness, career technical education and spaces that allow students to showcase their work.

Craig Olsen of KBA Architects reviewed a phased construction approach designed to minimize disruption: early work would add a district kitchen and connect the athletic and fine arts buildings, later phases would build new academic houses behind the current footprint, and the final steps would demolish the old central structure and complete site work. The architects said the scheme preserves access to key athletic facilities and adds green space near Flag Pond.

Officials emphasized career and technical education (CTE) as a priority: the plan would expand trade shops (HVAC, electrical, plumbing, carpentry), include public-facing culinary spaces and a trade hall for exhibitions. Community members and union representatives voiced support for CTE and offered to partner on training and construction work.

During a public comment period, residents largely supported the project while pressing for clarity on costs, schedule and quality controls. Several speakers described worn facilities, health concerns and the need to retain students who now choose other academies or programs. Union representative Steven Barry (EW Local 223) pledged workforce partnership; one resident asked that the district provide clearer maturity schedules and a total-valuation summary for the public budget spreadsheet.

Jeremy, a municipal finance professional working with the city, explained the financing: the portion of the project that would require a debt exclusion is structured as a 10‑year excluded debt service (approximately $60 million, as presented), while the larger remainder of the roughly $390 million project is financed over a longer maturity that the presenters say does not require a separate debt-exclusion levy. "The excluded debt service is a 10-year time horizon," he said, adding that the city's existing debt repayments and the upcoming pension bond payoff create capacity for the new school financing.

Organizers said the MSBA approved Brockton’s preferred schematic and that the team expects to submit a schematic design report to MSBA in October with board approval possible in December and a local debt-exclusion vote targeted for January or February. They also announced monthly office hours and continued outreach leading up to the vote.

The forum closed with organizers inviting follow-up questions and offering to meet one‑on‑one with residents to review the financial tables and project schedule.