The School Committee, during its Wednesday, Sept. 13 meeting, unanimously voted to approve sending the $135,289,673 plan for a new grade five to eight Whitman Middle School building — with an auditorium — intended to last and serve educational needs for 50 years, to the voters at the Oct. 30 special Town Meeting and to a Nov. 4 special election ballot.
The town stands to obtain $89,673,000 in reimbursements from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for the project.
The plan had been approved by the WMS Building Committee at its Aug. 15 meeting and survived an effort to rescind it in favor of a grade six to eight plan with a cafetorium instead of an auditorium at the building panel’s Aug. 28 meeting.
“We were accepted [by MSBA] in our first go-round because they saw the need for a new middle school,” Superintendent of Schools Jeff Szymaniak said, asking if that was a common occurrence for school projects. “If you postpone, you start rolling the dice.”
He said the project is at a critical point, if a middle school is to open in 2027.
“If I had a district calling me today … I would say to expect to potentially get in within three to five years,” said the committee’s Owner Project Manager Michael Carroll “It’s very unusual to put a statement of interest in the first time and get accepted right away.”
Carroll attended the School Committee meeting to brief them on the plan and the events of the Aug. 28 meeting.
“The Building Committee voted 9-0, with one abstention [former member John Galvin] to move the project forward,” said Szymaniak. He noted that the Whitman Select Board, on the other hand, had voted 3 to 2 [with Justin Evans and Shawn Kain against] on Tuesday, Sept. 12 to ask the School Committee to consider not voting on the project Wednesday.
impact of delay
Carroll was also asked to explain what could happen if the School Committee postponed its vote.
“Would we be out of the queue?” Szymaniak asked. “Would MSBA turn its back to us?”
He noted that Carroll is “relatively new to us,” having come on board with the project three weeks ago, but Szymaniak added, he had hit the ground running.
“There was a lot of discussion about budgets, there was a lot of discussion about the project, and we looked at different options,” Carroll said of the Aug. 28 meeting. “At the end of that meeting there was a vote taken to move forward with the school project as it currently stands.”
Carroll described an atmosphere of urgency as the committee worked on a schematic design package to submit to the MSBA, sending it to the building authority on Aug. 31 after the Aug. 28 vote.
“They’re reviewing it, they’ve given us a few questions,” he said. “They’re actually looking to talk to us about budgets next week. [The week of Sept. 18-22].
The MSBA project coordinator and project manager, who work specifically on the WMS plans, review it first and then with authority higher-ups with the ultimate objective to bring it before the MSBA board on Oct. 25.
“The assumption here is that they would be approving us,” Carroll said. When that happens, MSBA will forward a project funding agreement to the district and town. Carroll said that defines the funding agreement and, therefore, the overall project budget, which would go to Town Meeting and then the ballot question on Nov. 4.
Szymaniak asked how a postponement, as the Select Board had urged them to do, would affect the process.
“The MSBA would have to grant us a postponement, is that correct?” he asked. “It’s not a done deal?”
“When we entered into our agreement and feasibility study, we agreed to provide them our schematic design package within a certain time period,” Connor said, noting that, while he did not have that date on him, he believed it was Oct. 17. “If we were to withdraw our proposal, or ask to withdraw our proposal, one of the first things that we’d have to do is ask for an extension of that time. We’d have to explain to them why and … if we hadn’t submitted our package already … the MSBA is very accommodating.”
He said they do not want to continue to extend and extend and extend, but if there is a logical reason you need to do some reconsideration, there’s really typically no problem there.
They have, however, already submitted the schematic design plan and, while it has not gone to the MSBA board for a vote yet, he said he would think they would allow the district to withdraw it, but “we certainly ought to have a discussion on that before I would say that we could.”
Chair Beth Stafford, who pointed out that it would cost about $60 million just to get the current building up to code, said her concern was losing time as they worked to vote on whether to trim the $5 million in Teir 1 options from the plan. Funds for repairing the current school would also not be reimbursable, nor would the cost of the portable classrooms that would be needed while work is done.
Connor confirmed that they would have to confer with MSBA on how changes might impact the project.
While MSBA has not finalized their budget form, which will feed into the project funding agreement and what the vote entailed could have lowered that number.
“If we raised the number, we’d have to withdraw it, but if we’re lowering the number, I don’t know what the answer is,” Connor said. “We’d have to have that discussion.”
If a change is made to the project, it makes the process less definitive, he said. Building costs are also escalating, he explained.
“We can’t make that decision on this without talking to them and getting advice from them,” Carroll explained. The town could reconsider and do nothing, reconsider and ask for an adjustment to the overall project, ask the MSBA for an adjustment or to withdraw the proposal, which would require their input on what that withdrawal would mean and what duration they would be thinking about.
“The important thing here is, once they vote – if we do nothing – if they’ve approved us for a funding agreement, that’s kind of the point of no return,” he said. “Once they’ve done that, we’ve got to move forward with that project.”
Carroll said contingency funds are built into the budget in case change-orders come about.
“Virtually all my jobs, I’ve had the ability to send some of that contingency back,” he said.
Parents’ support
A quartet of residents spoke in favor of the project as approved by the WMS Building Committee on Aug. 28. expressing concern about the “near certainty of increased building costs” if the project is rejected or delayed.
“As we debate this huge topic, it’s important to remember that in order to just renovate the building and get it up to code has approximately a $60 million price tag on it and that would be 100-percent on the residents of Whitman,” said Leah Donovan, of 81 Old Mansion Lane, said during the public comment period. “There’s no funding available from the state. That’s a hefty sum or money for fixes that need to be done again and again and again.”
Small pointed out that the $60 million would not be a renovation, it’s a repair of what is broken and bring things to code.
Donovan said the town wants to take advantage of available MSBA funding, and that means a new school.
“That price tag is between $73 and $89 million at this point,” she said, noting that $10 million of that is contingency that might not be needed and residents would not be taxed on that. “That’s a staggering number for sure – I get it – but that price is not going to go down.”
Contingency funds are budgeted in case an unforseen problem adds to the cost of a project after a building budget is approved.
She said her fear is that, if the district doesn’t go ahead with a new school, they will end up paying the same price for a lesser school at some point down the road.
“We have an opportunity to do what’s right for the younger residents of the town,” Donovan said, asking the committee to give residents a chance to speak through their votes at Town Meeting and a ballot question.
Elizabteh Dagnall of 316 School St., also spoke in favor of the new WSM plan during the public forum.
“There seems to be a lot of fear surrounding this project,” she said. “Fear that it’s too large in scope, fear that it won’t be voted through, and fear as the main motivation in any situation can be a very damaging thing.”
She noted that, as the mother of a 13-year-old boy, she could be scared all the time, if she allowed herself to be.
“I can tell you that worrying amounts to nothing more than a state of worry,” Dagnall said. “What I’m learning as the parent of a teen is that Trust is far better than fear. Trust. When I allow for trust, the answer to ‘Are we going to be OK?’ surprises me. It often turns out to be something like this: ‘We are going to be more than OK. We are going to be great.’”
She challenged officials to, instead of fearing that it won’t pass at the ballot box, that “we trusted that it can.”
Julia Sheehan of 38 Beal Ave., thanked the committee and the building committee for their work on the WMS project so far.
“At this point, there is no way to drastically change the scope of the project without significant delays and even risking our grant from the MSBA,” she said. “Given that, I hope this committee will move forward with the Oct. 30 Town Meeting and the Nov. 4 vote. I believe the people of Whitman should have the opportunity to get out and vote.”
Julia Nanigan of 28 Forest St., who was born and raised in Whitman, said of all the schools she attended in Whitman, only WMS is still here and exactly the same as when she grew up.
“It’s pretty awful,” she said of the need for a new middle school. “We have to do this, and kicking the can down the road, we know is going to end up costing us more money. I think we just need to do it.”

HANOVER — There’s no construction price tag available yet, but South Shore Tech Building Committee heard updates on the feasibility study toward a renovation project or completely new building during its Thursday, Sept. 7 meeting.
Project Manager Jen Carlson of LeftField, a Boston firm that specializes in project management and Carl R. Franceschi, president of architectural firm Drummer Roxane Anderson Inc. (DRA) of Waltham made the presentation.
Alternative options for the project took up the lion’s share of the meeting, while will be completed this month.
“We will have some ballpark figures based on narrative and square footage [at a joint School Committee/Building Committee meeting Thursday, Oct. 5],” Carlson said. “They will definitely flux, going forward, but they are a tool to compare options against each other when we move into the next phase.”
A virtual public forum will also be held on the PDP Oct. 5.
“We will push that out so the larger community is aware,” Superintendent/Director Dr. Thomas J. Hickey said, noting there will be other public forums held through December.
Before that meeting, the School Committee will have to vote on the preliminary design program [PDP], planned on Wednesday, Sept 20, as will Building Committee meeting again on Thursday, Sept. 28. Building Committee might want to give feedback in a joint meeting Sept. 20.
That does give us some wiggle room,” Carlson said. A second round of public forums will invite community feedback on the final design in April and May 2024.
“As you might imagine, the forums this fall are going to be about issues, ‘Should we renovate this building? Should we build new?’ — very high-level discussions,” Franceschi said. “But by next spring, we’ll have focused on one preferred option and, people may still have issues in their mind, but the meaningful input will be on the one design we’re working on.” [See related story]
“We haven’t quite quantified the price, but we’ve quantified the size,” he said.
About a year behind Whitman’s middle school project in the Massachusetts School Building Authority approval process, SST is still in the feasibility stage, having spent $248,500 so far of $2 million budgeted for that purpose. Carlson said $1.4 million has been committed to date — representing 76 percent of the project’s budget.
“We still have plenty to pull from the environmental and site line item,” Carlson said, noting that another line item had been pulled from for budget transfers, putting the total spent so far at $248,500. “Our total spent to date represents 12 percent of the budget.”
A total of $84,000 has been invoiced on the project so far, including $29,000 for Left Field’s services for the month of August and DRA’s second invoice of $55,000 for the same period.
The building committee unanimously approved the budget update. The committee unanimously approved those expenditures, as well.
The study presented three possible deigns if the committee opts to do a complete rebuild, and two potential renovation plans — all based on a student body of 805 students, with the recent addition of Marshfield to the district. But Franceschi, noted there are also ways to design for 900 or 975 students. From the lowest to the highest student population figure, there is a difference of 40,000 square feet to consider in planning.
“We need to show the building could be expanded in the future, too. They aways want to see that at the state level, but we don’t want to see a situation where we’d be talking about expansion in five years,” he said. “Projects we’re estimating right now – just in the construction costs alone – are somewhere in the vicinity of $800 per square foot with sitework and building.”
It could add at least $30 million to the plan to base it on 975 students.
The condition report on the school highlights the wetlands on the site as well as the drainpipe that runs across the athletic fields, “just to highlight some of the constraints that we’re dealing with,” Franceschi said. “We’re updating those wetland flags and we will be in conversation with the Conservation Commission soon, too, before we even design anything, just to get their understanding and agreement that, ‘Yes, these are the limits of the wetlands’ so that everybody’s working with the same information.”
Massachusetts allows filling up to 5,000 square feet of wetlands, but it would have to be replicated somewhere else, sometimes as much as a 2:1 ratio.
Financial ideas
Whitman representative on the School Committee and building panel Dan Salvucci asked if it would be possible to create a curriculum program for horticulture students on working with wetlands regulations as a way toward obtaining funding.
Hickey said there could be an opportunity there.
“We use our campus as our curriculum,” he said. “This is just another way.”
Franceschi said the athletic fields are also topographically lower than the school and close to groundwater. A conventional Title 5 septic system at the front of the property now serves the school, with a “high probability” that a wastewater treatment plant and leaving field would have to be included on another area of the property.
The plans would also need to highlight how spaces meet current educational standards, not just in relation to the condition of spaces, but size. With Marshfield already having joined the district, he said designers have agreed internally that the design, at minimum should fit about 805 students.
“We’re trying to get the state to agree,” he said. “It’s a little variable in the shops, because we have to project what the enrollment would be in each shop, and it’s not a hard and fast number just yet, but we’re close enough that we could do this kind of a calculation.”
DRA has, in fact calculated that there is a high-level need to expand the building.
Salvucci asked if adding a second floor in some areas might be an option.
“We don’t consider it practical to put a second floor on the existing building,” Franceschi said. “We’re thinking multiple stories to the new construction or addition portions of the building, or maybe even demolishing part of the existing building and building multiple stories, but not building on top of what’s here.”
Safety issues
While it could be done, it’s too complicated because the building couldn’t be safely occupied while a new story is being added above. In 40 years in the industry, Franeschi said he has not added additional floors to an existing building yet.
“You don’t really have small group spaces, collaborative spaces that we see and desire in schools nowadays,” Franceschi said. “Teacher planning spaces are kind of not up to par for what you’d want. The science labs are another one that would have to be increased in size to meet space standards.”
Where science lab standards are 1,400 square feet today, SST’s labs are 800 square feet.
How the school’s educational plan and programs are to be organized was another consideration in the preliminary plans DRA and LeftField reviewed with the committee. In developing the plan, the district identified six possible new programs they would ideally like to include.
“In all of these things, and independent of whether it’s going to be an addition or renovation, or new construction, in a way we and the state kind of uses the education plan to measure against our proposed solution,” Franceschi said. “That’s why the education plan is an important guideline for all of us.”
They’ve already moved nine administrative offices, and the parking spaces that go along with them, including Hickey’s, to a house next door to the school purchased and renovated by the district. Cafeteria staff who park in front of the school are done for the day by 1 p.m.
“Parent pick-up has been much more pronounced since the pandemic,” he said, so making room for that traffic has been a priority, although the data is not available to support that observation.’
At first, Hickey said, he thought a renovation would be a lot cheaper than brand-new. But it’s not. To bring a 1962 building up to code entails some unpleasant surprises.
Carlson also walked the committee through a schedule and budget update.
“The scope of this [budget] amendment includes a visual inspection of the hazardous building materials —looking for hazardous building materials and identifying them,” she said. “This will include a report identifying the hazardous materials and then estimate services … of what the [cost] of removing hazardous materials might be.”
The work on a first draft is expected to be completed this month and costs are in line with the costs decided in the PRA contract.
The schedule provides a “zoomed-in look” and what to expect between now and the submission of the schematic design to MSBA in December.
The preliminary design program (PDP) will be the first submission to MSBA, scheduled for Oct. 5 — including a conditions evaluation, educational visioning, a draft educational plan, initial space summary (spaces aligned with the educational plan), an evaluation of alternative options and comparative cost estimates.
Next phase
The next phase — the preferred schematic report (PSR) — will feature a more detailed review of the PDP options, including a final education plan and the preferred design option based on three enrollment options, as well as and creation of a matrix of priorities and will be submitted to the MSBA on Dec. 28 in time for a vote on their approval two months later. Another, more refined, set of cost estimates will be made at this time, according to Carlson.
“Once you submit that PSR, then we’re into the schematic design phase and them it’s full steam ahead, developing that one [preferred] option,” she said.
After the two-month MSBA review, there is a meeting with the MSBA before officially submitting the final schematic design on Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2024.
The final submission is due to MSBA by Thursday, June 27, 2024, including the final design program and total project budget.
“By the end of June, we’ll have some really good numbers that are reliable and that we need to live within for the rest of this project,” she said.

WHITMAN – The Whitman Middle School Building Committee sat down to crunch the numbers on how they might trim the new school plans in an effort to make the price tag more affordable to voters, but – in the end, the committee was split in its decision, but the majority agreed to stick with the original decision.
“Whatever the number we set today, if we set a number today and we go forward to the MSBA, that’s the highest number the MSBA’s ever going to participate in,” owner’s project manager Mike Carroll said. “We’re above the cap on most of this anyway, so we’re really talking mostly town money when we get to discussions about the options here.”
A problem in finding places to cut lies in the efficiency of the school’s design, he noted.
“They know where the low-hanging fruit is and they’ve already picked many of those,” he said.
Base repair
Carroll said, as an example under a basic repair they would not be replacing all the windows, improving outside problems such as driveways or code upgrades the work would trigger.
“You’re bringing the building up to energy code as you can, but it’s within an existing building, so you’re not going to get as you would on a full gut/renovation or a brand-new building,” Carroll said.
The base repair is not a renovation or addition, it’s actually less than that, Carroll said.
It would not address potholes or other problems in the parking lot, either. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and new fire code update requirements, based on the building’s assessed value, would also be triggered with base repair, affecting building entrances, floors and ceilings, bathrooms, railings and stairs as well as sprinkler and electrical systems under a three-year window.
Committee member Beth Stafford said space needed for students is also not included, nor the cost of portable classrooms that would be needed.
“This is the take-home message for me,” Finance Committee representative Kathleen Ottina said. “There’s no discussion among the members of this committee that we need a new middle school,” she said.
Ottina said she wanted to reframe the discussion to consider their options – would the committee want to stay with the project, eliminate some costs to reduce it at level one through contingencies and soft costs, eliminate the auditorium and downsize the gym or change from grades five to eight back to six to eight.
“We can go through all sorts of budget discussions and what we should have known, what we wish we knew then back in January, that’s not going to get us where we need to go tonight, which is what building are we going to support?” she said. “I don’t think any of us have a real finger on the pulse of the voter in Whitman to say, ‘This is the way forward.’”
She argued the question is can the Committee justify supporting a building that will meet the needs of our current middle school children and the middle school children going to the next many decades.
Carroll described the effect of each tier:
Tier 1
Doesn’t substantially change the building, or the educational program and does not affect the building operations, but it does impact the district’s risk profile both at acceptable levels in the opinion of the architect and owner’s project manager. The average cost is $770 per square foot. Some possible reductions are:
Reducing the total contingency from 9 percent to 7 percent, saving the town about $2.1 million — $24 per year for the average taxpayer. [Each percent represents about $1 million]. Carroll said the MSBA treats the contingency for soft costs and hard costs as separate items.
The base building is 138,000 square feet. MSBA allows an expenditure of $1,200 per student for furniture, fixtures and equipment and an additional $1,200 per student for technology costs. Reducing FFE and technology costs may have saved $810,000. For most of his professional career, the FFE allotment has been sufficient, but even five years ago, the technology limit was difficult, Connor said. COVID’s effect on the cost of materials have meant the recommendation to increase the allowance for both costs by 50 percent to $1,800.
“You would just start to spend some of your soft costs on contingency, if you went with that option,” he said.
Reconsideration of ineligible square footages: The auditorium is expected to be consider an ineligible cost in its entirety, but the MSBA has been asked to reconsider the stage area in the past, which they have done because they accept cafetoriums. Reducing the stage area could trim $684,215 if it had been adopted.
“We feel we can make any or all of those changes and still make the Aug. 31 date,” he said.
Tier 2
Reductions in these plan components could impact educational program and operations.
Eliminating auditorium and wellness area, creating a cafetorium, which is more difficult from the design standpoint represents $5.1 million on the construction value but since the auditorium is an ineligible cost, the town would save quite a bit more than that. 7 to 8 million.
Reducing the size of the gym, represented a saving of $4,303,000, for the gym which is now 3,200 square feet over what the MSBA allows.
Reduce the teacher planning area by 304 square feet would have trimmed costs by about $390,000.
Reduction of outdoor storage, mostly for outdoor maintenance and sports equipment would have meant a price cut of $286,265. Superintendent of Schools Jeff Szymaniak said he is not specifically familiar with the middle school, but the high school, built in 2003, lack of storage is a major complaint.
“It may not seem like a big deal, but in 20 years, it could be a big deal,” he said.
Tier 3
No question, it will impact educational program and operations, it’s a matter of how much it will impact them.
Cutting 25 percent of the students by switching back to the current grade six to eight program would also eliminate 19,000 square feet from the building, but also causes a delay by way of a need to redesign the building.
Target construction changes would have eliminated $1 million and changing the grade configuration back to a five to six program would have trimmed $6.8 million.
“Any of these savings [in Tiers 2 and 3] have not considered any escalation due to delays or anything like that,” Carroll said. But they affect educational programs to continue meeting the time on learning requirements by DESE.
Select Board member Shawn Kain asked what happens if the voters do not pass the school issue – what action would the MSBA take?
Carroll said a re-vote could be allowed or the town could stop the project. Other cuts could also be made from the three tiers.
But missing the Aug. 31 deadline could require filing for an extension in any case.
The MSBA is willing to work with districts, however.
“They’re not looking to kick you out,” he said.
Select Board representative to the committee Justin Evans asked how much a delay could cost.
Architect said major changes such as eliminating the auditorium or a grade level would essentially been going back to the beginning of the design phase and the town would have to go back to the MSBA for guidance.
A delay could cost $350,000 per month for delay of project.
Small said he would be hesitant to save on contingency, which serves as a financial safety net in the event of problems, as well as FFE and the stage. He preferred to keep the contingency protection, hoping that they could get the stage money back and “covering ourselves for the FFE down the line.”