Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves plan to replace Berlin Intermediate School, citing cost and safety benefits
Summary
After reviewing three feasibility options, the board voted to advance a replacement for Berlin Intermediate School, concluding that a new two‑story facility (Option C) would reduce construction time, better meet code and learning‑space goals, and lower total project cost versus phased renovation.
The Worcester County Board of Education voted to advance a replacement plan for Berlin Intermediate School after a feasibility study presented three options and recommended building a new facility.
Becker Morgan architects and district staff told the board that the existing 1970 building has substantial deficiencies — outdated HVAC and security systems, classrooms open directly to corridors, limited natural light in core instructional spaces, and site circulation problems for buses and drop‑off. Brad Hastings, principal architect, said the renovation alternatives would require an extended, complex phasing plan with many portables and structural work to meet current codes. "Option C is the lowest total project cost," Hastings said, and his team recommended constructing a replacement school on the existing site to minimize disruption and meet 2024 code, energy, and learning standards.
The presentation compared three scenarios: two renovation variants that retain much of the existing structure and a replacement option. Architects said renovations (Options A and B) would likely require a 42‑month phased occupied construction with up to a dozen or more portables onsite and substantial temporary impacts on cafeteria, gym, and instructional space. By contrast, the replacement option was estimated to have a shorter construction window and fewer long‑term life‑cycle costs.
Board members asked about design choices, including a two‑story layout to preserve outdoor play and fit programmatic requirements. Board member comments stressed minimizing student disruption; one member recalled teaching during long renovations and warned that multi‑year phased work can harm instruction. The superintendent recommended approval to take the recommendation to the county commissioners and the state Accountability Implementation Board (AIB) for the next steps.
The board approved the feasibility study and the architect's recommendation (motion by Dr. Andes; second by Miss Mccomomas). The motion carried with the board voting in favor and no recorded opposition. The next steps are a presentation to county elected officials and submission to the state for final approval and schematic design, with target milestones discussed by the design team.
The feasibility study materials noted that construction scheduling, value engineering and final design will be refined in schematic design. Presenters said budget assumptions include state and local contributions already discussed with the AIB; the district will continue stakeholder engagement during design and value‑engineering to control costs.
The board will present the recommendation to the Worcester County Commissioners and submit the feasibility package to the state for consideration as the district seeks to proceed with schematic design.
