Board reviews ed specs for PES and GES; architects to circulate revisions before May 26 vote

The Regional School District 15 Board of Education met in a special session to review educational specifications (ed specs) for its two elementary projects, PES and GES, with Tekton Architects on hand to summarize teacher workshops and next steps.

The meeting opened with the chair saying the ed specs must be approved by the board for a state grant submission due June 30. "So we are here tonight to discuss, the PES and GES ed specs," the chair said. Josh and Tekton's Jeff and Antonia described a full day of teacher meetings that covered general classrooms, specialized instruction (CERT, speech and language, OT/PT), student support spaces, arts and makerspaces, physical education and facilities systems.

Jeff, an architect with Tekton, told the board most program spaces and quantities were already captured but highlighted remaining work on resource rooms and pre-K learning-center designation. "We're gonna show 18 tables and chairs in that room as the max so that that gives you the reimbursement," he said, explaining the ed spec shows higher-end classroom capacities to maximize state reimbursement even if the district chooses smaller furnishings later.

Board members pressed on operational details. Sharon asked whether the document underestimates classroom staffing and support spaces, noting the ed spec lists one nurse and a single coach in some places and questioning whether square footage and room counts would accommodate potential additional staff. Jeff responded that the building sizing was based on a 504-student program and that the ed specs intentionally show a higher furniture/layout capacity as a reimbursement strategy; he said the district can adjust staffing and furniture choices later.

Members also raised enrollment risk tied to a recent announcement that the state is considering affordable housing in Southbury. The architects said the district's demographer (MP Planning) applies multipliers to housing starts and that the ed spec used conservative (high-end) estimates as a safety factor; Jeff said the team can revisit projections and revise the program if a substantial development requires it.

Specific program details drew additional discussion. Board members asked whether one of the three pre-K rooms should be a specialized learning center with lifts and changing equipment for higher-need students; Tekton said those supports belong in the OT/PT description and should be written into the narrative and equipment lists to ensure eligibility for state reimbursement. The meeting also covered the cubbies-versus-lockers debate, with Jeff saying both options are being retained in the ed spec so schematic design can explore adjacency, sightlines, and trade-offs.

Security and community use were discussed as well. Tekton said many security requirements are state-mandated for new construction and described strategies to separate community-oriented spaces (for after-hours use) from classroom areas. The architects also confirmed playground equipment, ADA considerations and FF&E budgeting (rubberized safety surfacing, age-appropriate play areas) are included and that the team will note opportunities to repurpose existing newer equipment when feasible.

Before adjourning, the board asked for clearer change-tracking. Josh and Jeff said they would circulate a redlined spreadsheet highlighting edits and provide before-and-after visuals so members can understand how comments affect the building footprint and program. The chair reminded members the next regular Board of Education meeting is Tuesday, May 26, at 7:30 p.m. in the high school media center, when the board expects to consider a vote on the ed specs. Heather Dwyer moved to adjourn; John Genesaitis seconded, the board voted in favor and the meeting ended.