East Windsor board leans toward renovating elementary, combining middle and high school; asks CSG for feasibility and cost details

The East Windsor Board of Education spent a special meeting reviewing a facilities subcommittee update and taking initial steps toward a long-range school construction plan, leaning toward renovating the elementary school and exploring a combined middle-school/high-school campus.

Patrick, presenting the facilities subcommittee materials, told the board the packet included a CSG facilities report presented in February and a SLAM demographic enrollment study from April 2024. He said the demographic study projects modest enrollment growth — roughly 100 additional K' students over the next 10 years — and that CSG warned that piecemeal fixes would likely fail grant criteria because of building-envelope problems (windows, roofs, floors and ceilings). “Their work originated because we were looking to pursue air conditioning throughout all our buildings,” Patrick said, adding that a facility study was required to pursue state HVAC grants.

Board members described the subcommittee—s recommendation to prioritize the elementary school for renovation and to examine a combined middle- and high-school campus with separate entrances and schedules under one roof. The approach, members said, would allow curriculum and resource sharing while keeping middle- and high-school populations separated in practice. “The overriding issue with all of this is what is best for our kids going forward,” Patrick said.

The board discussed practical constraints the consultants and the subcommittee flagged: parking and traffic at the high-school site, topography and wetlands at the middle-school site, the need for engineering surveys to test feasibility, and the effect on athletic fields and bus routing. Several members urged that the district have two contingency plans so the board can pivot if an initial site proves infeasible.

Cost and bonding capacity were a recurring concern. The packet cited a preliminary estimate for two new schools that showed a district share of roughly $72 million; board members said the town—s bonding capacity must be clarified before the board commits to an option. The board asked Patrick to request quick cost estimates from CSG and to clarify which costs in the packet include land, swing-space or other contingencies.

During public comment, a resident identified in the transcript as Jeff urged the board not to rush the process and asked that the district present more than the six starter options CSG provided. “Please don—t rush this,” he said, urging fuller local engagement and multiple contingency options to avoid future surprises about parking, wetlands or displacement.

The board said it had reached consensus on next steps: Patrick will follow up with CSG staff (he referenced contacts Jim and Samantha) to get pricing, confirm feasibility questions and determine whether an architect or engineer should attend the next meeting. The board asked staff to try to schedule either a CSG presentation or a conference call in the coming weeks so members can review refined estimates and decide whether a formal vote will be required at an upcoming meeting in September.

Procedural actions taken at the start of the special session included a board vote to move public participation earlier on the agenda and a subsequent motion to table that participation until later in the meeting. The meeting ended after a motion to adjourn; board members said they want to ensure full information and community engagement before any referendum or bonding decision.

Next steps: staff will report back after conversations with CSG on costs, engineering feasibility and a recommended timetable for community engagement; the board signaled it intends to consider the refined information at its next regular or specially scheduled meeting.