Regional School District 15 weighs five‑year capital plan and whether to add a second high‑school turf field to a bond question

Superintendent Joe Mercato presented Regional School District 15's draft five‑year capital plan and urged the board to consider economies of scale if it moves forward with a construction bond. The presentation broke the district's capital needs into two buckets: recurring operating capital and a capital reserve/educational expense account that can carry unspent funds forward. "We prioritize safety and mechanicals," Mercato said, describing roofing, HVAC and science‑lab needs across nine buildings that total roughly 700,000 square feet.

The board spent most of its meeting on how to finance and sequence the work. Mercato outlined three science‑lab projects (two new labs at Roche and Bow and a renovation at the high school) and said formal pricing is still pending; he recommended bundling smaller projects into a larger bond for cost efficiency. He also described site work already underway, including a sewer/septic study for the GES campus and a construction‑access road that Tekton's feasibility work identified as potentially reimbursable when tied to school construction.

The most contested item was a proposal to add a second turf field at the high school. Staff described heavy demand for turf during spring practice and the potential convenience of an on‑campus second field. Cost estimates discussed in the meeting ranged from roughly $1.5 million to $2.5 million, and staff emphasized the need for architect estimates before making a finance decision. "You could spend as much as you could imagine...somewhere in that 2 to 6 [million] range is kind of where we're thinking," Mercato said when asked about possible budgets for an expanded athletics package.

Several board members warned that including a turf‑field question on a referendum with school construction poses political risk. Board member Jeff Olsen said he supported science labs being rolled into construction but opposed bundling a turf field into a single omnibus referendum if it might jeopardize passage: "I would be sick to my stomach" if a turf question caused a school referendum to fail, he said. Other members suggested a separate or contingent referendum question for athletics or asking the towns directly whether they want to partner on the field.

The board asked staff to obtain firm cost estimates and to consult the bond attorney about referendum options — including separate ballot questions, contingent language, and priorities if bid prices exceed expectations. Tekton is scheduled to present more detailed renderings and cost answers at the board's Dec. 8 meeting; the superintendent said referendum language would need to be finalized by March to meet a May vote timeline if the board chooses that path. No binding vote on a bond or turf field was taken at the meeting.

Next procedural steps: Tekton will return with detailed estimates and renderings in December; staff will gather pricing for the turf field and the science labs and consult the bond attorney about ballot language and contingencies. The board signaled interest in a preliminary "direction" vote on Dec. 8 to set a path forward, while reserving the final referendum language and dollar amounts for a later, binding vote.