Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Facilities assessment finds more than $250 million in projected deferred maintenance for New Canaan schools
Summary
Consultants presented a 15‑year facilities condition assessment, estimating just over $250 million in unescalated deferred maintenance (2025 dollars) districtwide and recommending prioritization over a 7‑ to 10‑year horizon and integration with master planning.
Consultants presenting a facilities condition assessment to the New Canaan Board of Education on Nov. 17 said the district faces an order‑of‑magnitude projection of just over $250 million in deferred maintenance across five buildings over a 15‑year window, using unescalated 2025 third‑quarter dollars.
"We're going to be talking about a 15‑year forecast over $250 million," said Philip Ki, introduced in the meeting as a representative and CEO of the consulting firm conducting the assessment. He told board members the estimate is intended as a planning tool and that the district should focus on priorities over the next seven years rather than treating the larger 15‑year total as an immediate obligation.
The consultants said mechanical systems and electrical upgrades account for a substantial share of projected costs. Examples cited in the presentation included an approximate $45 million projection for mechanical work at the high school and roughly $7 million in building‑envelope needs at the middle school. Consultants stressed that the figures are based on useful‑life estimates for equipment and systems; a unit that is past its useful life may remain operational for years if well maintained.
Board members asked detailed questions about electrical service upgrades needed to add air conditioning (panels and breakers that are obsolete can require full electrical‑service upgrades) and about tradeoffs between natural‑gas and all‑electric mechanical solutions. Presenters recommended using the assessment in tandem with SLAM’s master planning work, noting that some near‑term upgrades could be deferred or altered depending on long‑term decisions about building reconfiguration or grade reassignments.
The consultants recommended revisiting a facilities condition assessment every seven to 10 years, urged the district to use the assessment database as a living tool for prioritization and cautioned that the totals are unaescalated estimates subject to change if the district pursues phased or targeted projects.
What happens next: SLAM (the master‑planning consultant team) will cross‑check the assessment against options under consideration for elementary‑school configuration and priorities will be set by the district for near‑term capital planning.
