Wallingford school board debates pool, planetarium and space trade-offs for proposed single high school

The Wallingford School District Board of Education discussed educational specifications on May 19 for a proposed single high school that would combine Sheehan and Lyman Hall, focusing on whether to include a swimming pool and a new planetarium, how classroom layouts affect required classroom counts and reimbursements, and other support-space choices.

Board members and district staff framed the discussion around state reimbursement limits and building size, while asking consultants to return with updated pricing and schedule simulations. "I'll be sure when I speak with our representatives from Colliers to share some of the feedback from this evening," Superintendent Belizzi said, adding that the consultants would present revised documents and price ranges informed by the board's direction.

Why it matters: The district's choices affect the building's size and the percentage of cost that the state will reimburse under Connecticut school construction guidelines. That, in turn, determines what the town would have to pay directly for items such as artificial turf, lighting and some athletic and auditorium upgrades.

Most board members signaled support for keeping a pool in the plan. "I agree that we should absolutely have a pool," Board member Regan said, citing swim teams and a curricular role for swimming. Board member Latour added that swimming is part of the physical-education curriculum and not only an extracurricular activity. Several members also suggested designing the pool for after-hours public access to help offset operating costs.

Board members split on building a second planetarium. Regan said Sheehan's current planetarium should be maintained and upgraded rather than duplicated, describing the Sheehan facility as a classroom-style planetarium. "I don't see the need for having two planetariums," she said. Board member Derry, however, said convenience of an on-site planetarium at a single high school was a reason to include one. Superintendent Belizzi said consultants had mentioned an intermediate option: a specialized classroom with projector capabilities that could deliver many planetarium functions without a full planetarium footprint.

Classroom configuration and square footage were a major focus. District staff estimated the consolidated building would need roughly 24 additional classrooms to give every teacher a dedicated room under the assumptions used for enrollment and staffing projections. "In a rough look, we're estimating another 24 classrooms," Superintendent Belizzi said. Board members noted the 2016 state space standards reduce per-classroom area compared with earlier practice and that moving from a shared "pod" model to individual classrooms could push the building size beyond the fully reimbursable square footage.

Belizzi and other staff described trade-offs: removing collaborative workspaces could add perhaps seven classrooms back, but would not recoup all 24. "If we remove some of these work areas ... could we potentially add back some classrooms? I don't think you'd have enough space to get to 24, but it definitely is a place to work," a district administrator said.

Lunch scheduling and cafeteria capacity also drew sustained discussion. The ed specs show the cafeteria is sized to seat about 400, and the plan currently models four lunch waves. "Four smaller lunch waves" was described by staff and some board members as preferable for crowd control and student management; the district is preparing a mock combined schedule in PowerSchool to test timing and staffing.

Board members raised support-space questions: counseling, social work and psychologist office counts; administrator staffing; and relocation of district-level support such as the copy center and some IT functions. The ed specs list multiple private offices for counselors, social workers and psychologists; district staff said they were not proposing reductions in mental-health staff and recommended adding personnel only if the board wanted to do so. "If you didn't want to consider adding somebody, I would recommend a social worker based on your concerns," said a district staff member familiar with staffing ratios.

Committee members suggested moving the copy center and potentially some central-office functions out of the new building once other district office space becomes available; Belizzi said freeing that space could yield thousands of square feet and cited an approximate current allocation of 3,380 square feet for the copy center.

Several members questioned administrative staffing at a single high school. The proposed administrative complement includes one principal and three assistant principals plus an ASTE administrator, reflecting the consolidated enrollment. Board member Ross and others urged consultation with principals about disciplinary coverage and daily logistics.

The board reviewed what elements are not fully reimbursable by the state: artificial turf and lighting for athletic fields would be town costs, and auditorium seating and some gym bleachers carry partial or reduced reimbursement. "The lighting, the turf, not reimbursable. That is a full cost onto the town," Superintendent Belizzi said. Board members discussed grant and fundraising options to offset nonreimbursable items.

Athletic and storage planning: the ed specs include an off-building field support (field house) of roughly 7,000 square feet as an auxiliary facility for equipment and indoor/outdoor athletics storage. Board members stressed that outdoor equipment (for track, for example) needs on-field storage adjacent to the track.

Renovate-to-new vs. new construction came up repeatedly. Several board members said renovating both existing high schools to modern standards is unlikely to meet educational or space needs; others asked for comparative cost estimates. Belizzi said consultants (Colliers and SLAM) can produce cost comparisons for renovate-to-new scenarios but cautioned that lower enrollments at Sheehan would reduce the state's reimbursement percentage for renovations.

The meeting concluded with staff direction rather than formal votes: the superintendent will compile tonight's feedback for Colliers and SLAM, ask the consultants for revised ed specs and price ranges, and direct Colliers to run a mock combined high-school schedule in PowerSchool. Board members proposed a follow-up meeting in mid-June (June 12 was suggested) to review revised documents and firm up any nonnegotiable elements.

Ending: No formal motions or votes were taken at the May 19 session; the board asked staff and its consultants to return with cost ranges, schedule modeling and specific design options so the panel can make clearer trade-off decisions at a future meeting.