Southington officials recommend closing Flanders, building new Kelly and expanding South End in two‑phase plan

The Southington School District on Tuesday presented a two‑phase facilities plan that recommends building a new Kelly Elementary School, expanding South End and closing Flanders once new space is available, with a June 30, 2025 state school construction grant application and a likely November 2025 referendum for phase 1.

Pat Gallagher, principal with MP Planning Group, the district’s enrollment and facilities consultant, said the recommendation — labeled “Scenario D” — aims to “build just the right amount of space” for projected enrollment while keeping operations efficient and maximizing potential state reimbursement.

The plan grows out of a multi‑year study of enrollment, capacity and building condition. Consultants told the board the district’s pre‑K–12 enrollment is projected to increase slowly, reaching just under 6,500 students in 10 years, with elementary enrollment rising modestly to about 2,750 in five years and to about 2,850 at peak. District‑wide utilization now is roughly 76% and, under Scenario D, would rise to about 88% at peak — within the district’s stated operational target of 85%–90%.

Pamela Babuka of Studio Jade, who led the facility condition assessment, said the three remaining elementary buildings under study have concentrated near‑term capital needs: “74% of your needs are all bundled in the first 3 years,” she said, and the consultants estimated roughly $116,400,000 of deferred capital work across the three schools over 10 years if the district left the buildings as is.

What Scenario D would do

Under the recommended approach the district would seek a June 2025 grant application and a November 2025 referendum for phase 1 to build a new Kelly (designed as four sections per grade, larger than the current three‑section Kelly) and to fit out additional classrooms at South End. Any closure and redistricting tied to Flanders would occur only after the new spaces are occupied, currently projected for the 2029–30 school year at the earliest.

Phase 2, tentatively in 2028, would propose a smaller, right‑sized Daronofsky (four sections per grade) and a new Karen Smith Academy on the Daronofsky site. The district’s consultants said shrinking Daronofsky from its current size is an operational advantage because the existing Daronofsky building is larger than projected need.

Costs and fiscal notes

Consultants presented preliminary cost estimates for the proposed projects. Colliers Project Leaders estimated the total project budget for a new Kelly at about $66,400,000 (total project budget includes construction, escalation, furniture and fees); at the current reimbursement assumptions the district’s share was estimated at roughly $39,000,000. The consultants estimated the two‑referendum, two‑phase program at about $174,000,000 in total project budgets with an estimated district share near $97,000,000, noting those numbers are subject to change with final state reimbursement rates and market conditions.

Chuck Warrington of Colliers told the board the state process frames the timetable: “The statutory deadline for any district in Connecticut to submit a grant application ... is June 30. That’s our deadline that we’re working towards,” he said, and reminded the board that a referendum result must be reported by Nov. 15 to preserve the application in the current cycle.

Board questions and staff caveats

Board members pressed the administration on staffing, program impacts and risk. Board member Mr. Brown asked whether student services would be reduced under the staffing assumptions: “Will services to students be reduced if that much of a staffing reduction is made?” he asked. Superintendent Mr. Medansky (title as used in the meeting) replied that “these are only estimates” on staffing and that many positions could be reassigned rather than eliminated; he cautioned the board that one‑time reductions change future budget baselines and that student‑support services would not be eliminated simply by closing a building.

Administrators also noted uncertainties: mechanical systems and interior space deficits drove much of the cost in the condition assessment (mechanical systems were the largest single category, about 36% of identified needs), and Colliers said the budget carries an escalation allowance (the consultants used roughly 4.5% in their current estimates) and an owner’s contingency but advised the board to consider additional safeguards if market volatility increases.

Public comment and community concerns

Dozens of parents, former students and town officials attended the special meeting. Speakers told the board they value neighborhood schools and expressed concerns about redistricting, special‑education continuity and future uses of surplus property. Parent Seth Koring urged the board to move the project forward and asked the board to vote on a grant application by the district’s April 10 meeting. Town Council Chair Paul Chaplinski — speaking as a resident — said any closed school should be retained for public use if possible and urged the board to reach consensus and take a step forward.

Next steps

District staff said materials from the presentation and the full facility and enrollment reports would be available on the district website the day after the meeting and that a public question form would be posted. The board may consider formal action at upcoming meetings; if the board and town agree, the timeline discussed by consultants would have the district submitting a grant application by June 30, 2025 and holding a referendum in November 2025, with construction and redistricting work staged to avoid moving students until new buildings are occupied.

Because the plan depends on state reimbursement and market conditions, consultants warned the board that cost and schedule risk remain and that the district must set clear contingency plans before committing to referendum language or bond authorization.