Milford School Board presents draft facilities plan proposing consolidation to six elementary, two middle schools

The Milford School Board on Monday evening presented a draft long‑range facilities master plan recommending the district move from eight elementary schools to six and from three middle schools to two as part of a multi‑decade effort to modernize aging buildings and sustain instructional programs.

Board President introduced the session and said the board’s role is to balance districtwide needs: "The role of the board... is to consider the needs of every child in the district as a whole," she said, framing the presentation as a buildings‑focused, long‑term effort. Consultants from Perkins Eastman and an earlier building‑conditions consultant, HMFH, outlined analyses that drove the recommendations.

Why it matters: consultants and district leaders told residents that declining enrollment and deferred building needs have created fiscal pressure. The presentation cited that PreK‑12 enrollment is down "almost 2,500 students from 20 years ago" and that the district has removed about $2.8 million from its operating budget over the past three years. Presenters said most district buildings are 50 to 75 years old, lack air conditioning and will require multi‑million‑dollar investments to remain operational and to meet contemporary programmatic needs for special education, arts, STEM and career‑pathway spaces.

What the plan recommends: Perkins Eastman principal Patrick Davis said the firm evaluated parcels and determined there is not sufficient land to build a single comprehensive high school; the recommendation therefore is to invest in the two existing high schools (Foran and Law). At the middle‑school level the firm recommended consolidating three schools to two, identifying Harborside as the most likely candidate for consolidation to retain an east‑west balance. At the elementary level the draft plan proposes reducing eight schools to six and specifically named Caffrey and Meadowside as consolidation candidates.

Consultants described an implementation sequence intended to limit student disruption. The recommended first phase would construct new elementary schools on the JFK and Live Oaks sites so students could remain in their communities while new buildings are built on the same properties, then rezone to place students into the new capacity. Davis described "swing space"—temporary locations where students attend school during construction—and said many small parcels across the district limit on‑site construction options.

Timing and cost: Perkins Eastman and district leaders said each major project would typically take about five years from approval to completion, with roughly 18 months of active construction for a single school and an assumed 3.5% annual cost escalation on construction budgets. "At best, we're not opening the doors of those new schools till 2031," one presenter said, and consultants noted a 20‑year plan could extend work into the mid‑2040s if projects are paced slowly.

Public concerns and fiscal risk: Residents pressed for clearer communications and faster certainty. One public commenter said it "seems like you guys do whatever you want against the wishes of most of the parents," reflecting frustration from some attendees. The district emphasized multiple outreach efforts (focus groups, two community conversations in early 2025, ~1,200 survey responses, newsletters and website materials) and encouraged feedback during breakout stations. The superintendent warned that emergency budget pressure could force rapid closures: the district said another $1 million operating reduction from municipal bodies could prompt consideration of a school closure within "four months" absent a planned, phased process.

Next steps: The presenters opened the floor to small‑group breakout sessions with board members and Perkins Eastman staff to gather detailed community feedback; sticky‑note comments will be entered into the public record and the board will return to consider modifications before any formal approval. The board previously adopted a "preferred configuration" in earlier deliberations; the draft presented Monday is intended to guide capital planning, rezoning discussion and the capital improvement plan timeline.

The draft plan, supporting documents, and videos are posted on the district’s facilities planning webpage for public review, and the board asked attendees to submit ideas at the breakout stations and via the website ahead of future meetings.