Milford Board reviews 20-year facilities master plan proposing school consolidations, two sequencing scenarios

Perkins Eastman architects briefed the Milford Board of Education on April 13 on a draft long-range facilities master plan that would reshape the district’s school portfolio over the next two decades.

The presentation outlined a planning framework that keeps two high schools, reduces three middle schools to two and cuts eight elementary schools to six by closing Capen and Meadowside, while building replacements or ‘‘like-new’’ facilities across the district. ‘‘We looked at our RFP included exploring going from two high schools to one consolidated high school,’’ Mike Verger, principal at Perkins Eastman, said, noting the board previously decided to maintain the two-high-school structure.

Perkins Eastman laid out sequencing logic intended to minimize student disruption and swing-space needs. The firm recommended starting with two elementary sites that can be rebuilt on-site—JFK and Live Oaks—so students can remain in their existing buildings during construction and move into the new buildings once finished. That frees Meadow and Capen to serve as swing space for later middle-school projects, the consultants said.

‘‘Most schools will need to be off-site during the construction period,’’ Patrick Davis of Perkins Eastman said, describing the constraints posed by small parcels and the district’s need to protect instructional time. The consultants estimated a typical full project will take about five years from initial budgeting through design, approvals and construction.

They offered two scenarios: a slower, one-at-a-time schedule that spreads projects over a longer horizon and an accelerated, concurrent plan that front-loads work. The firm said the faster approach would reduce long-term costs: ‘‘You would save about $200 million by doing [the accelerated] scenario,’’ Patrick Davis said, reflecting the impact of a 3.5 percent annual construction escalation assumption.

Board members pressed Perkins Eastman and district staff about practical questions: how contractors would schedule noisy work, traffic and curb-cut permits for new entrances, the cost and durability of modular ‘‘swing space’’ classrooms, whether recently renovated schools should be deferred, and how preschool (including potential universal pre-K) and special-education programs would be sited. The consultants repeatedly urged site-specific studies and early boundary planning before commitments are finalized.

On safety and security, the team said design offers many levers—from single secure entry points and vestibules to visibility-focused circulation and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design—and offered to produce a brief guidance slide for future public sessions.

Next steps: Perkins Eastman invited the public to a district engagement meeting the following week (public session at Jonathan Law High School) and said a final report and recommendations would follow later in the month. The board signaled it would continue to refine sequencing and boundary work, and the administration said it will coordinate capital requests with the mayor and permanent buildings committee as the process advances.

The plan laid out by Perkins Eastman is conceptual and fiscal assumptions will be revisited with more detailed feasibility and education-specification work before construction decisions are made.