TURNERS FALLS — The Franklin County Technical School Committee reviewed eight design options on Wednesday for constructing a new school or renovating the existing building.

A building task force — made up of School Committee members, Franklin Tech administrators and town officials — has been meeting to review options as they head toward submitting a preferred schematic report to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) by Aug. 28. The task force is working with representatives from Lavallee Brensinger Architects and Colliers Engineering & Design on an ongoing feasibility study exploring design possibilities.

“You have a very good group of people reviewing these with us,” Leigh Sherwood, principal-in-charge with Lavallee Brensinger Architects, said of the task force.

Out of the eight options that were presented Wednesday, three were recommended by Lavallee Brensinger Architects, Colliers Engineering & Design and the building task force. These include one design outlining plans to build an addition and renovate the existing 1976 building, and two designs calling for an altogether new school in the field located southeast of the existing building as either a compact, two-story structure or an L-shaped, two-story structure. Both new building options involve demolishing the current school, and building a parking lot and athletic field in its place.

At the March School Committee meeting, Sherwood debuted goals and values the district has for a new building. The presentation showcased how each design aligns with the 15 goals, which consider education, community, value, sustainability and character.

These goals include maximizing energy-efficiency; pursuing cost-effective and durable construction; allowing for outside community use; minimizing disruption to education and extra-curricular activities during construction; allowing for future expansion opportunities; supporting vocational and academic education; and promoting a welcoming, collaborative and accessible atmosphere.

Option 6, the compact, two-story design, and Option 8, the L-shaped, two-story building, were found to align with all 15 goals. Both structures would limit disruption, as the new building would be built away from the main campus. Either option for a new building would also entail limited maintenance and allow for energy-efficiency, and would maximize MSBA and state energy reimbursement opportunities.

However, the compact, two-story design, referred to as a “compact box,” was considered most appealing by members of the task force.

“When it came to which of the new options people thought was the best to carry through, they chose Option 6, the compact box, because it was the least expensive and most practical,” Sherwood said.

After the presentation of the eight designs, committee members inquired about how much of the total project cost the MSBA would reimburse, which is estimated between 40% and 50% at this time, according to Sherwood. The roof of the new building was also discussed, returning to a conversation members had during the March meeting. As the specifics of each design aren’t fully known yet, Sherwood said it has not been determined whether the roof would be flat or pitched.

School Committee member Sandy Brown asked Sherwood about environmental grants or programs such as the Inflation Reduction Act, which offers clean energy tax credits and deductions for geothermal heating projects. Brown also asked if grant cuts and program cancellations under the Trump administration would make those tax credits unavailable as this project progresses over the next three and a half years.

“When we talk about the IRA from the federal government, that is the thing that is reimbursing after the fact,” Sherwood clarified, saying the program offers reimbursements for geothermal heating projects, which is preferred for this school building but could change as work progresses. “That’s where you have to make a decision and hope that it’s available. So when the time comes, whether geothermal is an option for this project, you would have to make that decision.”

By the end of the meeting, School Committee members were told of the Aug. 28 deadline to submit the preferred schematic report. Members discussed holding one more meeting before submitting a report to the MSBA. The committee settled on holding a virtual meeting on Aug. 13. From there, the state will receive the chosen design information, and the Sept. 10 School Committee meeting will provide an update on the process.

Community outreach and a school district vote won’t be in the cards until mid-2026, and construction is expected to start in 2028.

Erin-Leigh Hoffman can be reached at ehoffman@recorder.com or 413-930-4231.