HANOVER – South Shore Tech School Committee, meeting with the Building Committee has hired a construction management firm, Suffolk Construction of Boston, and met some of the firm’s principals at its Wednesday, May 22 meeting.
Kevin Sullivan also joined the project management team from LeftField while Jen Carlson is out on maternity leave. Sullivan updated the two committees – which overlap in membership – on CMS work, the availability of feasibility funds and plan updates.
Suffolk Construction was selected from five firms interviewing on May 9 for the contract, which was recommended by the Building Subcommittee, May 10. based on scoring made based on the five firms’ proposals, the interview and price proposals: Consigli Construction, Gilbane, Turner and Lee Kennedy construction firms were also interviewed.
“There were some very talented firms showing interest in our school project and it was a very deliberate process,” said Superintendent-Director Dr. Thomas J. Hickey who served on the subcommittee panel conducting the interviews as well as members Robert Mallo and Robert Mahoney, along with representatives from leftfield and architectural firm DRA. “I’m happy right at this point to move this process forward.”
The Building Committee voted in favor of the construction management contract award to Suffolk Construction on Wednesday, May 22, making it official with an 11-0 vote. The contract carries $50,000 for schematic design from feasibility study funds and $268,826 for pre-construction costs from general conditions fees.
Hickey said contract negotiations may include minor changes the committee will plan in deference to any changes deemed necessary the school district’s legal counsel to review the state’s contract template.
The School Committee later voted to finalize the Jan. 26 election date in member towns on the MSBA school project, before shifting back into the Building Committee session.
Sullivan then reviewed the funds paid out on the project so far and updated the committee on the budget as members approved of $67,540 for a contract amendment within the budget regarding work being done in the schematic design phase of the feasibility study, including a traffic analysis and geotechnical services regarding soil samples where the new school would go. He noted that 79 percent of the feasibility studies budget has been committed and 52 percent of those funds expended so far, expecting to stay within the feasibility budget and have $210,228 left over when the work in this phase is complete.
“We’re confident that we’ve stayed within budget and will continue to do so,” he said.
The MSBA schedule will require the schematic design report to be submitted there by Aug. 29 and a budget turned in by mid-August. MSBA will review the information at its October board meeting.
“This project will be complying with the new, very strict energy code, sort of going above and beyond, too,” Sullivan said of plans surrounding the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. “Not only will it produce an energy-efficient building with low operating costs going forward for the district, which is great, but also initially it will allow the district to receive 4 percent more in reimbursement from MSBA.”
To provide an illustration of how important that is, Sullivan used the example of a $20 million project, which would increase the MSBA reimbursement by $8 million. The project would also be in line for receiving significant utility company rebates as part of state and federal incentive programs.
“That’s not factored into the equation yet,” he said, noting that they are communicating with the state program and National Grid to ensure that the company will comply.
The all-electric powered building will mean it would produce little fossil fuel impact to the environment while being more efficient. Solar panels on the roof could be a part of that.
“We’re certainly making the entire building solar-ready,” he said.
Shop design will include lockers for all students, a work area where instructors can effectively supervise students while having space to do their work and – in high-ceiling shop bays, a mezzanine with dedicated HVAC equipment for ventilation. Vestibules between shop work areas and the hallways will help control noise.
Leaving the district administration offices in the renovated former house next door, where they have been working for about a year, will allow a smaller school building and using space more efficiently in the school will make it 2-percent smaller, which will also help with the budget bottom line, as well as re-use of recently purchased equipment, Sullivan said. The site plan is also being developed, but he said there have not been any significant changes there as yet.
Suffolk will set up on site in June 2026 in an area at the back of the property to keep impact on neighbors to a minimum as well as being adjacent to where the new building is actually constructed. They foresee being able to raze the current school building by May 2028. Athletic fields, to be situated where the school now stands will be ready by 2029.
In other business before the School Committee, members held the annual public hearing for participation in school choice. As has been traditional for SST, the committee unanimously voted not to participate in school choice for the 2024-25 school year because the district has an established process for admitting students from outside the school district.
Principal Sandra Baldner reported that, while the official report has not yet been released, the school has received a generally positive preliminary report following a recent two-day NEASC reaccreditation site visit, which had only a couple suggestions for improvement.
She also reviewed the goals of the 2024-25 school improvement plan. Those goals include: extension education; professional development; making sure short-term and long-term budget funding supports the population on campus, starting next year; as well as teaching learning and foundational element of professional practice as the School Council wants the school to focus on artificial intelligence – or AI.
“What does that mean for teachers and students – the good, the bad and the indifferent and how do we manage that and move forward as educators and learners,” Baldner said.
Cultural proficiency is another area on which the school will continue to focus, as the school has done for the past two years, but it will be more site-based than bringing in outside experts. Student mental health and the educational resources around mental health will also continue to be stressed as well as the mental health of educators.
The final details will be presented to the School Committee and posted on the school website this summer.
“We have a small School Council, but our stakeholders that we engaged in the process of identifying our needs was vast, through surveys and virtual opportunities to connect with us,” she said, thanking the council and stakeholders for their work.