Facilities master plan presented; committee refers recommendations to full board for discussion

District facilities staff and consultant teams (MP Planning and Studio Jade) presented the facilities master plan summary at the March 5 Facilities Committee meeting, describing 10- to 15-year options for renovating, consolidating and building schools across Bridgeport.

Staff described the master plan as a framework rather than a final proposal. George Garcia (facilities staff, Bridgeport School District) said the plan should “give us a framework to work from” and emphasized that recommendations are not set in stone; he reported that the district has received more than 1,500 interactions on an online ThoughtExchange survey and that in-person community forums will follow.

Key findings presented to the committee included: a high number of older buildings (the consultants identified multiple schools built more than 50 years ago and several that are over 90–100 years old), large deferred capital and maintenance needs in multiple facilities, and options that include replacement construction in locations where siting and capacity are viable. The consultants and staff said some older buildings cannot efficiently support modern educational programming and that cost-avoidance analyses — comparing renovation/repair to replacement and potential state reimbursement scenarios — will be needed to guide decisions.

Committee members raised a range of questions: - Cost/benefit detail and timeline: Members asked for a clearer comparison of projected construction costs, cost avoidance from closing or replacing buildings, and how projects would be phased; consultants and staff said some cost estimates are in development and that funding assumptions (city bonding, state school construction reimbursement, potential grant points for energy efficiency and pre-K) affect schedules. - Redistricting and swing-space planning: Members asked whether redistricting scenarios had been run to distribute enrollment impacts equitably across quadrants of the city; staff said they did not present a district-wide redistricting model in this phase and recommended running boundary scenarios only after the board makes policy decisions on the number and siting of facilities, to avoid multiple moves of families during phased construction. - Community engagement and process: Several board members stressed the need for early, clear and repeated outreach to parents because proposed consolidation or replacement options can be disruptive; staff said multiple community forums, surveys and targeted school meetings are planned and that any school-closing recommendation would require formal public hearings and board approval. - Transportation and operational costs: Members asked for analyses of the transportation impacts and incremental costs that would accompany consolidation and redistricting; staff acknowledged this must be included in any financial modeling.

Staff and consultants emphasized timing: constructing a new school is typically a multi-year process (grant application, design, permitting, construction) and the plan’s recommended replacement schools would not be immediate. Staff said specific closures are not scheduled for the 2025–26 school year unless the board directs otherwise; any closures would follow board decisions and statutory public-hearing requirements.

At the end of the presentation, a committee motion to refer the facilities master plan materials to the full board for discussion only was made, seconded and approved. Committee members and staff agreed on the need to continue refining cost estimates, run targeted redistricting scenarios if the board requests them, and schedule community meetings that clarify timeline, transportation and family impacts.