The Town of Millis Select Board and the Millis School Committee voted Feb. 5, 2025, to endorse AR4A, an addition‑and‑renovation plan for the Millis middle‑high school, and to submit the district’s Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).

Rich Nichols, chair of the School Building Committee, presented the project options and said the committee selected AR4A as its preferred option after exploring multiple renovation, addition‑and‑renovation and new‑construction scenarios. The plan would add a new middle‑school wing and a new gym, create distinct middle and high school areas with shared core facilities, and provide a built‑in swing space to avoid temporary modular classrooms.

The educational rationale drove the choice, Millis Superintendent Bob Mullaney said. “A school is more than a building,” Mullaney said, adding that the AR4A option would create right‑sized classrooms, dedicated special education and English‑learner spaces, flexible small‑group learning areas and space for STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Math) instruction.

Chris (project architect/engineer, Vertex) described the building deficiencies the design seeks to address. “The red blocks are classrooms that do not meet, sort of, state standards in terms of size,” Chris said, pointing to rooms the team flagged in its facilities assessment. The consultants reported widespread system age, leaking walls and windows, and roof and mechanical systems near the end of their useful life.

The AR4A plan uses an addition on the south side of the site to create swing space for students during phased renovation so the district would not rely on modular classrooms. A Select Board member emphasized that point during discussion: “A modular classroom is money we spend and then just throw away and the state won't reimburse us a dime for it,” the member said, arguing the AR4A swing‑space approach avoids that ineligible expense.

Cost estimates presented to the boards put AR4A’s hard construction cost at about $98 million and a preliminary total project estimate near $127 million after soft costs and contingencies. The project team estimated MSBA reimbursement in the “high 30s to low 40s” percent after ineligible items and program caps are removed, translating to a potential state contribution of roughly $44 million to $56 million and a net town share in the range of about $71 million to $82 million under current assumptions. The presenters cautioned these are planning estimates; the MSBA will calculate the final grant amount after the district submits the PSR and the MSBA reviews eligibility.

Consultants said certain costs would be categorically ineligible for MSBA reimbursement, including swing‑space modulars, off‑site athletic field work, borrowing costs and some administrative space. The team estimated a modular swing‑space cost at roughly $4.8 million and noted the MSBA does not reimburse that line item.

The teams compared AR4A to other options the district studied. Smaller renovation options would not address undersized classrooms, science lab size and middle‑school programming needs, while full new construction would increase construction costs and require extended loss of fields and additional ineligible field costs. The consultants concluded AR4A best balanced educational program improvements, schedule and value to the town.

The boards were also briefed on timing and next steps. If the Select Board and School Committee endorsements stand, the School Building Committee will submit the PSR to the MSBA by the Feb. 27 deadline. The project team expects an MSBA Facilities Assessment Subcommittee review and an MSBA board determination in spring, with schematic design work through the summer, MSBA project scope and budget agreement in October, and a town funding vote (a debt exclusion) at the November town meeting and ballot if the MSBA process proceeds as scheduled.

Public commenters at the meeting urged continued outreach and transparency as the PSR moves forward. Resident Loring Barnes requested open lines of communication through the funding vote; another resident, Nicole Riley, asked whether any part of the existing back wing could be retained — the project team said the smallest classrooms and earliest additions on that wing constrained the value of retaining that section.

The Select Board motion to endorse AR4A and submit the preferred schematic report to the MSBA passed unanimously on a voice vote. The School Committee then opened its meeting, voted to approve AR4A and to submit the PSR to the MSBA; that motion was made on the record and passed unanimously as well. With both bodies’ votes, the project team will move to finalize the PSR and begin schematic‑design work pending MSBA review.

The town and project team posted technical reports and the educational plan on the project website for review; the MSBA will determine final eligibility and reimbursement after the PSR submission and its subsequent review.