The Region 15 Board of Education is narrowing its scope to two concepts for the future of Gainfield Elementary School (GES) and Pomperaug Elementary School (PES).
After initially receiving the recommendation to explore three options from the GES/PES Feasibility Study Committee in June, the school district has determined that no suitable property in Southbury could support a facility for their top option of a single new combined school.
The remaining two options include building two new schools on their existing property, or building a new GES on its current site while finding a new site for a new PES building.
The board will be joined by representatives from Tecton Architects at its next scheduled meeting to dive further into construction considerations on Monday, December 8, at 7:30 p.m.
Two Plans and the Price Tag
As of this month, the board is now focused on two concepts: Option 4B and Option 4C.
Under 4B, the district would construct two new schools on their existing property.
The 4C plan would call for building a new GES on its current site, while relocating PES to a new location.
The total cost of each plan would come out to approximately $206 million before reimbursement, which does not include the costs of demolition and remediation of PES, nor the sale or purchase of property for either option.
The total cost to the school district, after state reimbursement, would depend on whether a space waiver is approved by the state for the project.
The proposed new elementary schools would each be about 95,000 square feet, roughly 27% larger than the state normally allows for reimbursement. If the district is granted a space waiver to account for this extra size, the total cost to taxpayers would be around $82 million, resulting in an effective state reimbursement of roughly 60%. Without the waiver, taxpayers would be responsible for about $112 million, with a reimbursement rate of 45.7%.
Additional state incentives, including 15% extra reimbursement for early childhood centers and 15% for specialized education spaces could save the district tens of millions of dollars. These newly enacted laws make pursuing the larger, fully-featured schools both more feasible, and with a sense of urgency.
Timeline Crunch
Region 15 Superintendent Joshua Smith said at the most recent Board of Education meeting on Monday, November 24, that he is most conscious of a timeline to craft a referendum question to pose to voters of Southbury and Middlebury in May of next year.
He said he would like to see language created for the referendum question in March, which would ultimately mean picking a route forward in the preceding months.
While the board is still in a data-gathering stage, Smith says there are still site options to consider for PES that will require an imminent decision.
If the school district decides not to use the current PES site on Main Street South, Smith said there’s an avenue to go to referendum to ask to sell it, with the money going back to the towns at their respective average daily membership (ADM) of the district’s schools.
“If this (PES) wasn’t a viable site, I would encourage us to do that,” said Smith.
However, it was noted by Board Chair Marion Manzo that the Feasibility Study Committee recognized that it is easier to work with the properties you have rather than trying to find a new one.
If PES remains at its current site at 607 Main Street South, plans call for the new two-story building to be constructed behind the existing school. A temporary access road from Rochambeau Middle School could potentially be built and later could be paved and converted into a permanent parent drop-off loop, accommodating around 80 queued vehicles and alleviating traffic backups.
A new septic system at the PES site would be connected to Rochambeau Middle School, allowing the old system at the middle school to be taken offline. Smith said he believes the access road and the septic system would qualify for reimbursement, since they are on the district’s property and related to building schools.
At GES, the district plans to install a new sewer line and pump chamber regardless of any school construction decisions. This would involve decommissioning the existing septic tank and field, and would not be reimbursable.
Smith explained that there is an opportunity cost with the town of Southbury looking to replace the nearby one-lane bridge.
“Anything off-site we’ll have to pay for, but we think long-term, this cost is still going to be cheaper than ever having to replace a septic system there,” explained Smith.
Although nothing is set in stone yet regarding a potential future PES location, both Smith and Manzo acknowledged that there are positives to using the land the district already owns.
“We haven’t ruled out looking at other spaces, but there’s a growing body of evidence that shows that there’s some advantages to building both schools on the existing property, so that we can control our own destiny over the future,” said Smith.
With the committee’s second option being to build two new schools on the existing properties, and a third option to explore other sites, Manzo said the board isn’t bound by the pair of options, but they still hold weight, with data coming in on some of the potential properties.
“[The committee’s] first option was one new, big school on a new property, but they knew that was not going to be so easy to achieve,” said Manzo.
Potential Properties
While the search for a 20-acre piece of flat land in Southbury for a single combined school may be just about over, the board is still discussing potential pieces of land that could support a new PES building.
Multiple privately owned properties were pursued, but none were available for purchase.
Sites like the state-owned Pierce Hollow Village were probed, but topographical concerns would complicate development. The parcel is also zoned for affordable housing, which would require legislative action before it could be used for a school.
A portion of the former IBM property on Kettletown Road may be usable, but the steep grading and access issues with the parcel that was recently rezoned to industrial pose a challenge. Although a lower section of the property is still under review, using this piece of land could impact Southbury’s future tax revenue.
And a patch of town-owned land on Roxbury Road is under review to see if it is a viable site, although it has generated some outside noise from residents and neighbors who say that it would pose traffic concerns, affect property values, and disrupt local residents and wildlife.
An online petition started on Thursday, November 6, by a resident of Roxbury Road, has garnered more than 370 signatures, calling for reconsideration of the 415 Roxbury Road property for possible development.
At the Monday, November 10 Board of Education meeting, Leslie Pratt, the author of the online petition, spoke directly to board members about her concerns surrounding the Roxbury Road site.
A mother of two students attending GES, Pratt made clear that her concerns were not opposition to the overall plan of building new facilities, but to the idea that a school could be potentially built across the street from her.
“I’m super excited about the new schools for our students and educators, but gosh, I just don’t want it across the street from my house,” said Pratt during the public comment section of the meeting.
“Admittedly, very selfishly…I wasn’t paying attention before,” she continued.
Pratt cited traffic concerns and the proximity of a potential school to nearby communities like Heritage Village. While acknowledging that the board faces complex decisions, she urged members to reconsider the Roxbury Road location entirely, adding that she would like to see PES stay where it currently is.
“As a citizen, I believe that putting a school on Roxbury Road would be incredibly detrimental to the beautiful natural space that you spoke of,” said Pratt. “I hope that Roxbury Road can be taken out of the equation.”
Board member Steve Suriani offered some candid remarks on a possible school at the Roxbury Road site, stressing that he wanted to be upfront and transparent with the board and community members as the process moves forward.
“I could tell you in my heart now, I could not vote for a school on that property,” Suriani said. “I don’t want to say absolutely not, but if it was really the only option, I might be able to hold my nose, but I really sincerely doubt that I could vote to take that land away from being the open space that it is.”
He clarified that his stance was solidified before any online petition began circulating.
Although in agreement with the petition’s cause, he noted that comments directed to the board, whether via email or public comment, would serve as a more “meaningful piece of communication.”
“To me, those petitions, it’s hard to see who has signed them,” he said, adding that some signatures are coming from outside Southbury’s zip code. “I respect people’s opinions, but I would encourage people to write to the board.”
At the following and most recent Board of Education meeting on November 24, it was clarified that the Roxbury Road property is not off the table as a potential option.
Board members like Heather Dwyer say that it is important to keep gathering information about potential properties in order to make an informed decision down the road.
“I do think that we need to continue to gather that data, even on property that may be unpopular, problematic, and ultimately something we don’t decide to pursue,” Dwyer said.
Some board members had concerns about future disruption to students at three of the district’s schools while construction goes on. Dwyer said that the Feasibility Study Committee chose not to recommend any “renovate as new” options because of a lengthier project timeline and what could be even more disruption to students.
Local Leadership Weighs In
As the towns of Southbury and Middlebury prepare for new local leadership, the question of the Roxbury Road site has reached beyond the Board of Education, drawing reaction from Southbury’s First Selectman-elect.
Tim O’Neil, who won Southbury’s municipal election earlier this month, was in attendance for the November 6 Board of Education meeting.
Although he didn’t speak at the meeting, O’Neil told The Record this week that he is “totally against” the site being used as a potential school site.
O’Neil, who resides just up the road from the site, added that he would like to see the site be preserved.
Board Chair Manzo and Superintendent Smith say they are planning to meet with both O’Neil and Middlebury’s First Selectman-elect Jennifer Mahr in the first weeks of their terms.
“We value our relationship with the towns,” Manzo said, noting that members of each town’s Board of Finance made up part of the Feasibility Study Committee.
What’s Next
As long-term options continue to be weighed, officials have also pointed to similar in-state decisions in Cheshire and for Madison’s recently opened Neck River Elementary School, having recently gone through their own school construction processes.
Board members discussed the possibility of taking a field trip to see how the projects went from concept to construction.
“They aren’t a regional school district, so they aren’t the same as us,” Smith said of the town of Madison. “It’s a community that went through something similar.”
For now, the Board of Education is expected to revisit the issue at its next regular meeting on Monday, December 8, at 7:30 p.m.
The board’s Monday, November 24 meeting experienced technical difficulties and was not broadcast live, as it usually is.
The Record’s previous coverage on this topic:
The Southbury Record 