Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears detailed options for Squadron Line School; several members favor building new
Summary
Techtown Architects presented three options for Squadron Line School—status quo repairs, renovate-as-new, and new construction—showing similar net town costs after state reimbursement. Several board members said new construction appears faster, less disruptive, and offers greater long-term flexibility; next steps include coordination with town finance bodies and more detailed cost refinement.
Techtown Architects principal Jeff Wazinski told the Simsbury Board of Education that Squadron Line School, built about 56 years ago, needs significant attention to its roof, windows, mechanical systems and accessibility features.
Wazinski said the building’s original design—including early open-classroom configurations later permanently closed—plus aging envelopes and systems create programmatic and code challenges the district can no longer ignore. “It’s a safe building. It was well built and maintained,” Wazinski said, “but after 56 years of use it needs significant attention.”
The firm presented three distinct approaches: (1) a status-quo, phased repair program spread over years; (2) renovate-as-new (RAN), which mixes reuse and new work to meet state renovation criteria; and (3) full new construction on site or an alternate town-owned site. Wazinski outlined trade-offs for each: the status-quo has the lowest immediate outlay but higher long-term risk and lower expected state reimbursement for many items; RAN modernizes the building but requires complex phasing (he estimated ~40 months) and higher escalation; new construction offers design flexibility and less long-term disruption though it can have high headline costs.
Wazinski cited state reimbursement assumptions used in the analysis: a renovation base rate around 36.43% and a new-construction base near 29.17%, with a preschool incentive of +15 percentage points that can apply to the entire project and additional small incentives for specialized-education areas. Using those assumptions and escalation at roughly 4.25% compounded, his cost scenarios produced similar net town shares in the examples shown—roughly in the high $60 million range under several permutations—because escalating a phased repair program can approach the cost of a more consolidated RAN or new-build approach.
He also explained phasing logistics: because Squadron Line is a two-story, highly interconnected building, RAN work will likely require temporary modular classrooms and longer occupied-phased construction, increasing temporary-modular and site-phasing costs. “This building is unique…everything’s connected vertically and horizontally,” Wazinski said, noting modulars are more probable for a lengthy RAN schedule than for a side-build new-construction approach.
Board members pressed on cost drivers, on how reimbursement applies to demolition and site work, and on escalation tied to timing of grant submission. One board member summarized the district finance committee’s view: building new appears faster, less disruptive to students and neighbors, and more flexible for future educational programming. Multiple board members expressed a preference for new construction, while also asking administrators to provide additional data and to coordinate next steps with the board of selectmen and the board of finance before any referendum or formal grant submission.
The presentation closed with agreement on next steps: refine the preferred option’s cost estimate, clarify phasing logistics and temporary-modular needs, and begin the formal town-level capital dialogue and community engagement process. The board did not take a vote on a preferred option at this meeting.
Wazinski’s full presentation and the district’s supporting analysis will be provided to the other town boards for review as the district prepares for the capital-approval process.
