Board hears detailed plans and cost estimate for Riverside School renovation; vote deferred

Architects and district staff presented a renovation-and-addition plan for Riverside School and a preliminary cost estimate of $45,500,000, then answered questions from board members and members of the Riverside community. The presentation and nearly two hours of public comment centered on classroom sizes, a proposed 14,000-square-foot rear addition, accessibility and life-safety upgrades, a new cafeteria and kitchen layout, a multipurpose room and a sensory room, and a proposal to add two pre-K classrooms.

The feasibility committee, architects and the principal said the project responds to longstanding problems of overcrowding and deferred maintenance. "This is a 90‑year‑old building and it's not clear a school‑wide renovation has ever been done," said Carrie Bisbee, a Riverside parent and PTAC facilities committee member, urging the board to approve ed specs in time for the Board of Estimate and Taxation's (BET) April 1 deliberations. Principal Jason Martin said the design team consulted widely: "They have taken the time to listen to every voice in our school, teachers, staff, administrators, and parents," he said.

Why it matters: Riverside has been flagged repeatedly in the district facilities planning documents as a high‑priority facility. Speakers and the feasibility materials showed many classrooms below Connecticut size guidelines and described operational limits — shared staff spaces, restricted special‑education and intervention space, and a cafeteria that limits lunch time. The district's goal in the plan is to increase the building's usable area without creating an oversized facility: the architects said the proposed plan results in roughly 70,217–70,951 square feet (about 1,700 square feet above the state’s reimbursable area calculation) rather than the 80,000‑square‑foot “ideal” program the committee first mapped.

Details and cost: Lucia Jansen, a member of the BET who also served on the feasibility committee, noted the project's price tag and asked for more time to review the packet. "This is a proposed $45,500,000 investment with 80 pages of information released only four days ago," she said and specifically called attention to the cost and programing for two pre‑K classrooms (she cited an estimated $1.3 million for classroom build‑out plus a $200,000 playground expense, or $1.5 million total for those elements). Rick Kucsera, the construction cost estimator, explained major cost drivers including masonry restoration, roofing, windows and the phasing/staffing assumptions; he and the architects said they built an allowance for contingencies and phased work to minimize student displacement.

Pre‑K question and next steps: The plan includes two pre‑K classrooms; several board members and members of the public urged a separate, fuller review of whether adding pre‑K at Riverside is the right districtwide strategy. Board member Michael Joseph asked the district to analyze alternatives and possible trade‑offs, noting playground and parking impacts and the district's existing pattern of operating pre‑K across multiple sites. Superintendent Dr. Jones said the district is already short of space for adding required federally funded pre‑K seats and that options include trailers, leased space or creating dedicated pre‑K facilities elsewhere — all of which have cost and program implications.

Action taken: The board voted earlier in the meeting to move the Riverside feasibility presentation up the agenda so the large public turnout could participate. Sophie Coven (Board member) moved to approve the ed specs "as presented" during the discussion; that motion was seconded, discussed, and then withdrawn during the meeting. By the end of the session board members agreed to continue the discussion and to return the ed specs as a future action item after additional information and follow‑up questions are answered; no final approval of the ed specs was recorded at this meeting.

What to watch for: The board requested further follow‑up information (including comparative pre‑K benchmarks and modeled phasing scenarios) and said it will circulate answers to board questions before the next meeting. The district will also supply more detailed cost and swing‑space scenarios so the board and the BET can assess the timing and funding implications.

Ending: The meeting record shows broad community support for an eventual renovation and strong interest in the pre‑K question and phasing logistics. The board left the item open for further review rather than taking final action this evening.