Region 15 board weighs sites, septic and state incentives as it advances plans for two new elementary schools

Superintendent Smith told the Region 15 Board of Education that feasibility work points to several possible paths to address two aging elementary schools and that recently enacted state incentives could materially reduce the local cost of new construction. “Any building that we build that includes an early childhood center could qualify for 15% on the entire building,” Smith said, and the district has identified a second 15% reimbursement that applies to square footage used for specialized education programs.

The board spent the bulk of the meeting walking through candidate sites and the tradeoffs of renovation versus new construction. Smith summarized the committee’s analysis of the IBM parcel, noting it is listed as a 228‑acre property but that only a roughly 9‑acre buildable portion is practical for a school and the town would lose an estimated $1 million–$2 million in annual tax revenue if the district placed a school there. He also flagged legislative and environmental constraints on the state‑owned Pierce Hollow site, and said the town‑owned Volpe Brosnan parcel yields only about 3.2 buildable acres, raising questions about excavation and bus routing.

Septic capacity and utility access emerged repeatedly as decisive factors. Smith described the need for septic or sewer systems sized for about 500 students plus staff and said tying the Rochambeau and other site septic systems together or connecting to sewer lines could change feasibility calculations. Consultants described a three‑phase construction approach that would allow a school to operate while a new building is erected on the same site, but the board and staff warned that swing‑space costs and mitigation (temporary classrooms, asbestos abatement windows) are large and often unreimbursed.

Board members emphasized the feasibility committee’s tiered recommendation—ideally one new school on a new property, alternatively two new schools on existing properties, then a hybrid option if needed—and urged staff to produce public‑facing concept drawings and clearer summaries of the technical materials posted online. Several members signaled urgency tied to the state reimbursement timeline, noting that permitting, design and a potential referendum schedule will require prompt decisions if the board plans a spring vote.

Public comment brought neighborhood opposition to one candidate site. Leslie Pratt, who said she lives across the street from 415 Roxbury Road, asked the board to remove Roxbury Road from consideration, warning that “putting a school in Roxbury Road would be incredibly detrimental to the beautiful natural space that you spoke of,” and citing traffic and safety concerns.

The board did not adopt a final site or vote on a bond at the meeting. Members directed staff to continue due diligence, accelerate design work for the Gainesville Elementary School (GES) site where feasible, clarify cost assumptions (including reimbursable vs. unreimbursable items) and prepare digestible materials for public review ahead of any referendum decision.

Next steps: staff will continue site analysis, pursue detailed septic/sewer design estimates where required, develop concept drawings for the most viable options and return with refined cost and timeline information that would support any decision to place a bond or referendum before the member towns.