The Wallingford Board of Education on Sept. 29 heard updated square‑footage, cost and state reimbursement scenarios for a potential single high school and voted to approve a site test‑fit study to be paid from the district contingency fund. The board approved the test‑fit motion by roll call, with seven members voting yes and two voting no.

Board members and the district's consultants told the board the revised packet corrects earlier square‑footage and cost errors and applies the state's newly issued 2026 reimbursement rates. Scott Pelham of Colliers presented the corrected square footage totals and explained arithmetic and transcription errors in prior materials; Superintendent Danielle Belizzi and Colliers then reviewed the budget estimates and the effect of the state's updated rates on the town's share.

The test‑fit motion matters because state reimbursement applies only to eligible construction costs and the reimbursement percentage drops when a proposed building exceeds the state's allowable square footage for a district. The board was told the state revised its calculation for 2026 in a way that narrowed the gap between renovation and new construction support: renovation reimbursement rose slightly (from about 54.28% for 2025 to 55.36% in the revised 2026 table), while the new construction reimbursement was presented as roughly 51.25% in the 2026 table. The presenters cautioned that those percentages represent the state's maximum support for eligible construction costs and do not apply to ineligible items (for example, work beyond the property line) or to limited eligible items (pools, turf fields, certain athletic facilities) that are reimbursed at a reduced rate.

Board members asked detailed questions. Pelham said a prior handout mistakenly listed classroom additional gross area as 5,585 square feet when the corrected figure is 11,002–11,093 square feet (the revised packet corrects that). He also said a numeric typo in an earlier estimate used 322,000 instead of 332,000; both errors were corrected in the updated packet. Pelham and Belizzi said cost escalation in the probable budget assumes compounded construction inflation of about 4.5% per year to a midpoint of construction (the packet assumes a construction midpoint around 2031 under the current schedule).

Pelham described how building size affects reimbursement. The board was told the state's formula determines an allowable building area (the packet used a threshold of 277,938 square feet). If the proposed gross area exceeds that threshold, a reduction factor applies and the district's reimbursement percentage declines; examples shown in the packet reduce the effective reimbursement for some options to the mid‑40s and low‑40s percentage range (one example for Option 4 showed an estimated effective reimbursement near 43.56%). Pelham stressed that these are estimates based on current state statutes and that some towns have sought legislative relief after a grant application is submitted.

Board members also discussed what the state considers nonreimbursable or limited eligible. Pelham said the state publishes guidance and that items such as movable equipment (for example, laptops that are taken home) can be ineligible, while built‑in items are more likely to be reimbursed. Pools and many athletic surface upgrades are treated as limited eligible (a pool was described as typically reimbursed at 50% of the district's rate, while turf fields generally are not reimbursed in current practice and are accounted for as a bid alternate so the district can document the delta).

The board approved a motion to authorize a test‑fit study to identify how candidate sites would accommodate the program options presented. Chair Dr. Roscoe made the motion and a second was recorded; the board took a roll call vote with the motion carrying (yes: Doring, Passaretti, Reed, Regan, Ross, Votto, Roscoe; no: Reyes, Versace). Board discussion preceding the vote included a statement from one member who said she would not support the study without knowing the site and multiple members who asked that the board cap the study authorization. The board recorded an estimated study cost in discussion as between $30,000 and $40,000; staff noted the district would use an on‑call contract with prebid rates for the work.

The agenda packet included several project cost scenarios and stated town and state shares for those scenarios. Superintendent Belizzi and Colliers said the packet shows a renovation option, several new construction options (with and without a pool and with added dedicated classrooms), and associated high‑low probable budgets; in one board exchange Reed cited an approximate town share figure of $222 million for the board's chosen Option 4 and roughly $251 million as the town share for a renovation option, as presented in the revised packet. Colliers warned that the state will not confirm renovation status until the district has filed a project and the state completes its review; to qualify for renovation status the district must demonstrate that renovating is cheaper than building new and that the building is structurally sound for an extended service life.

Board members also discussed the ASTE (Academy of Science, Technology and Engineering) facility that would be part of the project package. Staff said the ASTE program is not being paused or eliminated; rather the program would be relocated if the board proceeds with a single high school / campus solution. An ASTE line item appears in the packet and was discussed during questions about how that program's ed specs are being revised and when the district expects to complete that work.

Superintendent Belizzi and Colliers said they will continue to update the board and provide the state's list of ineligible and limited eligible costs, and that staff would invite Colliers and the architects (SLAM) to the operations committee to review details. The board asked for sample comparable new construction projects Colliers had completed; Pelham said Colliers was finishing New Fairfield High School and would provide comparisons and final cost reconciliations.

What happens next: Colliers and the district will complete the site test fit work and then return to the board with a tighter cost estimate, identified site constraints and an updated projected reimbursement rate. The state's final grant application process and any subsequent legislative action remain external steps the board cannot control.

Sources: board discussion, presentations by Colliers (Scott Pelham) and Superintendent Danielle Belizzi, and the revised project packet distributed to the board.