Weston board reviews SLAM's Phase 2 feasibility study; renovate-to-new and new-build costs close

The Weston School District Board of Education received a detailed Phase 2 feasibility presentation from SLAM Collaborative on the district's middle school options, hearing cost estimates, schedule scenarios and next steps for a potential grant-backed project.

SLAM's principal Kevin Morhardt, a registered architect with the firm, told the board the analysis used an updated eight-year peak enrollment projection of 554 students and the district's 2024 educational specifications as the design basis. "The state permits 168 square foot per student, and then they also have a separate statute that allows a 1% kicker on top of that number," Morhardt said, describing the calculation that yields the state's net gross allowable area (NGAA) and the resulting eligibility quotient.

Why it matters: that quotient largely determines how much of construction costs the state will reimburse. SLAM calculated an eligibility factor of about 0.8049 for the district's current assumptions, which materially lowers the effective reimbursement rate used in SLAM's cost model. "That number is saying any eligible construction costs in this scenario would be multiplied by 0.8049," Morhardt said.

What SLAM presented: two test-fit approaches and schedules. The renovate-to-new program is a three-phase plan that would keep students on site with approximately 12 portable classrooms used as swing space during construction; SLAM estimated total project cost in that scenario between $134.5 million and $141.4 million, with the Weston share estimated at $118.8 million'$124.5 million and the state share at $15.5 million'$16.9 million under SLAM's effective reimbursement assumptions. The new-build option (a U-shaped building sited south of the existing school) produced a similar total range, roughly $136 million'$143 million, with a larger local share and a smaller state share under current rules.

The board pressed SLAM on trade-offs. One member noted the top-end difference between new and renovation appears modest and asked whether a legislative or administrative route could secure renovation reimbursement for a new-build project. Morhardt said such outcomes have occurred elsewhere and recommended early outreach to the district's delegation: "I think there's an argument to be made there," he told the board.

On phasing and student impact, SLAM said portables were sized to house an entire displaced grade during the first phase ("We're showing 12 spaces out there, and in my mind, that will house an entire grade," a SLAM presenter said), and that phases could be subdivided so the building maintains required internal connections during work. SLAM also documented the existing building's makeup (about 161,000 total sq ft including gym/pool; roughly 135,000 for the middle school footprint) and proposed demolishing about 31,000 sq ft in a renovate-to-new scenario while adding targeted new construction to align net areas with the Ed Spec.

Costs and contingencies: SLAM said estimates are based on recent bid data from similar projects (including a recent Greenwich middle school), escalate to midpoint of construction, and carry a +/-2.5% range plus standard design, construction and owner contingencies. The firm included a line item (about $3.5 million) for sustainable initiatives and accounted for abatement, demolition and portable costs in the renovation scenario.

Next steps: the board chair asked members to submit organized follow-up questions to district staff so SLAM can respond in writing and at the board's March meeting. SLAM recommended commencing design work this summer if the district proceeds with a grant application to avoid schedule-related escalation. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn; the transcript does not capture the final voice vote.

What remains unresolved: the transcript and SLAM's presentation raised three major follow-ups the board requested: (1) a clearer path or advocacy strategy for improving the district's eligibility factor or seeking an administrative/legislative exception if a new-build would better limit student disruption; (2) a refined schedule-vs-cost comparison that includes the full operational impacts of portables and temporary reassignments; and (3) an analysis of how alternative grade configurations (for example, adding grade 5) would affect NGAA and reimbursement. The board asked SLAM and staff to provide written answers and showed consensus to continue the discussion at the next meeting.

The board did not vote on any project authorization or funding at the session; discussion focused on information-gathering and preparation for a referendum and grant application process.