Milford Board adopts long-range facilities master plan after hours of debate; vote 7–2

The Milford Board of Education on May 11, 2026 voted 7–2 to adopt a long-range facilities master plan known as Scenario A, a multi-decade blueprint developed with Perkins Eastman that sequences school replacements, consolidations and temporary swing-space measures across the district.

Board president Susan Glennon opened the business meeting and turned the discussion to Perkins Eastman, whose principal Patrick Davis summarized the firm’s analysis and offered two sequencing options. The board approved the plan after roughly three hours of presentation and questioning and more than an hour of public comment.

Perkins Eastman emphasized the district’s capital needs and the modeling behind the recommendation. “Facility condition index represents essentially the condition of the building,” Patrick Davis said, explaining that higher FCI scores indicate buildings with larger deferred maintenance relative to replacement cost. He told the board that each school construction project would likely include about two school years of construction time, with the whole project lifecycle from CIP submission through bonding and design commonly taking about five years.

Scenario A — the plan the board adopted — starts with building two new elementary schools (JFK and Live Oaks in the consultant’s sequence), then sequences middle school projects one at a time, continues with the remaining elementary replacements, and finishes with major high school construction. Perkins Eastman modeled swing-space requirements and concluded the portfolio will require roughly 20 temporary classroom portables across the district at different times; the firm estimated a rental quote of about $1.1 million for six classrooms for two years and a program-level portable budget in the range of $4 million to $6 million depending on configuration.

Board members and staff repeatedly stressed that the master plan is a funding-agnostic blueprint rather than an immediate spending authorization. “This is a plan that will serve as a blueprint for the next 20 plus years,” Susan Glennon said during discussion, adding that individual projects must still secure city capital funding, state approvals and bonding before construction can begin.

Public comment ranged from support for the board taking a long-term approach to strong concerns about school closures and the timing of redistricting. Carrie Treat Harrison, speaking for herself and neighbors, urged the board “not to close CF Pen Meadow,” saying consolidation would harm neighborhood character and urging investment instead to expand preschool capacity. Parents and residents also raised equity and safety concerns about extended use of portables and potential loss of play space when portables are sited on blacktops.

Several board members described the trade-offs that informed their votes. Board member Mary Claire Edmonds, who voted no, said she was worried that some students could face “four years of disruption” if sequencing resulted in back-to-back construction and swing-space transitions during their elementary and middle-school years. Adam Scobby, the other no vote, said he prefers a middle-school-first approach to reduce double disruptions for some cohorts.

Megan Doyle moved to adopt Scenario A; Hannah Tedros seconded. The board passed the motion on a roll-call vote, 7–2 (yes: Megan Doyle, Jennifer Brown, Nicole Flowers, Tom Koba, Hannah Tedros, Nicole Wilhelm, Susan Glennon; no: Mary Claire Edmonds, Adam Scobby). The motion’s text recorded in the meeting minutes was: “That the Milford Board of Education adopt the long-range facilities master plan scenario A as presented.”

Next steps: adoption of the master plan allows the district to submit targeted projects to the city’s five-year Capital Improvement Plan process and the permanent schools committee for individual project approvals, design procurement and bonding. District staff and Perkins Eastman emphasized that boundary/redistricting work and student-assignment policy discussions should occur in the coming years to reduce repeated moves for students and to fine-tune portable requirements and program placements.

Implementation remains contingent on annual CIP decisions by the city (board of aldermen and mayor) and state funding and reviews. As Perkins Eastman warned, delays raise cost risk: the firm modeled a 3.5% annual escalation on construction pricing, meaning the longer projects are delayed the higher the eventual capital cost.

The board completed the rest of its business — approving minutes by unanimous consent — and adjourned at 10:56 p.m.