Region 15 feasibility committee recommends new school complex to address aging elementary buildings

The Regional School District 15 Board of Education on Sept. 8 received a unanimous recommendation from its Gainesville–Poplarock feasibility study committee to build a new school complex — two elementary schools on a single new campus — rather than pursue major renovations of the existing buildings.

The recommendation matters because the district is weighing the educational and financial trade-offs of renovating aging buildings versus constructing new facilities, and because state reimbursement rules and site constraints will shape what the district can afford and where it can build.

Tekton Architects led the feasibility analysis and described a yearlong process of building tours, three public “community conversations,” teacher think-tank sessions and more than a dozen committee meetings that produced several options. Jeff Wazinski, principal at Tekton Architects, told the board the study evaluated existing conditions, programmatic needs and state reimbursement formulas, then modeled renovating-as-new, addition/renovation and new-construction scenarios.

Wazinski said the team’s schedule and state grant timeline would typically put a completed project in the neighborhood of fall 2030 if the district pursues a grant in mid-2026 and follows a four- to five-year delivery timeline. He told the board that “these projects take anywhere from about 4 to 5 years to complete from grant application all the way through to construction completion.”

The feasibility committee’s recommendation — presented to the board by committee members and summarized in a submitted statement from parent and committee member Jason Andrews — favored a new-campus solution because it would avoid many of the site and systems limitations at the two existing properties and would allow the district to design schools sized to anticipated district needs. Andrews’s written statement, read into the record, said the new complex “could provide optimized learning environments for students in this district without encountering the limitations in the use and development of the existing properties.”

Committee members cited three recurring constraints: the age and physical condition of the existing elementary buildings, limited and difficult sites for expansion (several sites are on septic or are physically constrained), and the additional costs and schedule risk associated with phased renovation of occupied buildings. Don Michaels, identified in the record as chair of the Southbury Board of Finance and a feasibility committee member, emphasized those points and urged that “finding a home for this school . . . will be a bigger challenge” given limited large, buildable parcels in the towns.

The architects presented enrollment projections and state reimbursement calculations that shaped the committee’s view. Tekton summarized district projections (the presentation used a medium projection) showing modest growth in elementary enrollment through the 8‑year planning window the state requires for grant applications: one school’s elementary projection was described in the presentation as rising from about 395 to 452 students and the other from about 319 to 375 (district and demographer figures were noted as subject to upcoming updates). The team also explained the state’s allowable-area rules, which affect how much of a building’s square footage is eligible for reimbursement.

The consultants and committee highlighted several financial points the board should consider: published state reimbursement rates discussed in the meeting (presented as roughly 49.29 percent for “renovate as new” and about 42.5 percent for new construction at the time of the presentation), a 15 percent capital reimbursement bonus the team said applies to buildings that include state‑recognized pre‑K programs, and an additional percentage for dedicated special‑education spaces. On those bases the architects presented example cost models: the consultants summarized a renovate-as-new scenario with a reported total project cost near $84,000,000 and an estimated “cost to RSD 15” of roughly $44,000,000; a combined single‑campus new construction scenario was presented in the slides with a total project estimate in the mid‑hundreds of millions (the presentation example cited about $127,000,000 total and a cost to the district of about $78,000,000); and two separate new schools on their own sites were modeled in the $80–$86 million range total in the slides. Tekton cautioned the board these figures change with site, scope, escalation and final program decisions.

Committee members and board members repeatedly flagged land and utility constraints. Several committee participants noted that the two existing elementary sites have limited usable acreage and some are on septic systems, which complicates the possibility of on‑site expansion and can add significant cost. The consultants said land acquisition costs were not included in the modeling and that purchases of new, non‑town land would not be reimbursable by the state.

Board members and committee participants emphasized process and next steps rather than making a decision. The board did not vote on a construction option. The superintendent and administration told the board that later in the same meeting they would hold an executive session with the architects to discuss potential real‑estate options; the board chair said explicitly that no board vote on a project would occur that night.

Supporters of the new‑campus approach argued it best addresses long‑term educational space needs and creates an opportunity for a preschool program that could trigger the state’s pre‑K capital bonus. Skeptics and cautioning voices stressed the practical challenges of finding a suitable, buildable parcel and the political work required to take a proposal to referendum.

The feasibility work is continuing: Tekton recommended further due diligence (site analysis, grant‑application steps, more detailed program and cost refinement) as the district decides whether to pursue a grant and, if so, whether to seek special legislative or administrative waivers that could affect reimbursement. The presentation identified mid‑2026 as the timetable for submitting a grant application if the district wanted to pursue that cycle.

The Board of Education directed follow‑up work and scheduled an executive session to discuss property matters with the consultant; the board made no binding decision and will consider next steps only after additional site work and legal/financial analysis.