Consultants for the Weston School District told the district's Education Oversight Committee on June 18 that the middle school's original structure appears sound and could meet Connecticut's criteria for a renovation designation, but the cost of fully renovating the building remains uncertain.

The consultants — Jim Holden, project manager for SLAM; Kemp Moorhart, SLAM principal in charge; structural engineer Steve Murray (SLAM); Lucian Trigulski and Kim Simmons (Bemis Associates); and Scott Pellman of Palia's Project Leaders — summarized a Phase 1 assessment that included one day of on-site inspection, document review and a 15-page memorandum delivered April 16. Holden said, "the renovation could meet the criteria for renovation status. However, right now, it's uncertain about the cost of the renovation."

The consultants said Phase 1 was intentionally limited in scope: teams popped ceiling tiles, inspected mechanical rooms, reviewed available drawings and photographed conditions, but did not perform invasive testing. They recommended a Phase 2 study to develop a feasibility plan, a professional cost estimate, conceptual drawings and the documentation required by state forms (referred to in the presentation as SCG3501 and SCG3520) for a renovate-as-new grant application to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). Colliers/Palia's representatives said Phase 2 would cost $40,000; the team's Phase 1 fee was $7,500 and is complete.

Why it matters: a renovate-as-new designation can trigger higher state reimbursement but requires the town to demonstrate that a full refurbishment will meet modern codes and cost less than new construction. Scott Pellman said the grant application must be filed before June 30 of a grant year to be placed on the state priority list and that the list is submitted to the legislature on Dec. 15; approvals can follow in the summer of the next fiscal cycle. That timeline means the town must decide its approach well in advance of any referendum or final funding decision.

Key technical and financial points raised in the presentation:
- Structural integrity: SLAM's structural review found the original building's structure "not compromised" and suitable for renovation in principle, but the team said an in-depth Phase 2 analysis is needed to quantify work and cost.
- Building size and programing: presenters said the existing building is about 152,000'153,000 square feet (about 162,000'163,000 with the pool). Their new-construction scenarios used an assumed size of roughly 115,000'121,000 square feet (plus about 10,000 square feet if a pool is included). Consultants noted the district's educational specification (EdSpec) would be used to map required spaces into either a renovated layout or a new building.
- Systems replacement: consultants said meeting the renovate-as-new standard typically requires replacing mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire-protection and data systems so they can be certified to current codes for the next 20 years; that full replacement drives cost and eligibility. The team also noted incomplete archival drawings and some unknowns about hazardous materials and abatement, which would be expensive to remediate and are not yet quantified.
- Timelines and relative schedule: they estimated design and state approvals would take 14'16 months; bidding and award 3 months. New construction would typically take 20'4 months; renovation of an occupied building could extend 360 months. The longer schedule for renovation increases escalation risk (the presenters used an industry escalation assumption of roughly 5% per year).
- State reimbursement assumptions: the team used baseline reimbursement percentages in their order-of-magnitude comparisons: about 12.14% for new construction and 22.14% for renovation (presenters noted these are baseline figures and that legislative changes could alter them). The consultants said the district share depends on final project and reimbursement; their high-level comparisons showed new and renovation scenarios producing fairly close district-share totals under those assumptions.

Board discussion and questions focused on cost, scope and town affordability. Several members said the town's board of finance has set a rough affordability parameter (board members discussed an approximate $85 million envelope, described as borrowing capacity spread over multiple years rather than an immediate cash sum). Committee members asked whether the consultants could study a smaller renovated school that matched current and projected enrollment; Holden and Moorhart said Phase 2 would include space planning to test a reduced footprint and that doing so could lower costs but would not guarantee meeting the town's stated affordability constraints.

On other topics discussed during Q&A:
- Pool: consultants presented options both with and without a pool and said pool facilities receive limited eligibility for state reimbursement. They said no decision has been made and multiple permutations remain possible, including retaining the existing pool structure while rebuilding other parts of the campus.
- "School within a school": consultants said they have experience with configurations that separate grade bands within a single building but that cost and program implications depend on a project'specific scope and were not studied in Phase 1.
- Hazmat and demolition: the team included industry-average allowances for abatement in the high-level estimates but noted no site-specific hazardous-materials report has been completed; that remains an outstanding cost risk.

Final action: the committee did not authorize Phase 2 during this meeting. The session closed with a procedural motion to adjourn that carried by voice vote.

What's next: presenters recommended that the district consider whether to authorize Phase 2 to provide the detailed feasibility, space planning and professional cost estimate required for a formal DAS submission and for the board and voters to weigh the renovate-versus-new decision. Several board members said the town finance parameters and the preferred risk profile will need to be clarified before the committee proceeds.