Fifth Option For School Expansion Revealed After Forum

By John Voket

Last Monday, about 100 residents and town officials gathered to give the Board of Education their opinions of four school expansion options that were detailed in handouts circulated before the special meeting and on the school district’s website.

But what the public apparently was not aware of was what some town officials describe as an “extremely viable” fifth option, which the Board of Education’s chairman and the school superintendent learned about during a December 16, 2005, meeting with an architect and First Selectman Herb Rosenthal.

Less than 12 hours after the crowd dispersed from the Board of Education’s public input session, its chair, Elaine McClure, was discussing the fifth option before members of the townwide PTA Council.

“I certainly mentioned it Tuesday morning at the PTA Council,” Ms McClure confirmed.

That option, which was asserted by an architect from Fletcher-Thompson on December 16, was to construct an 88,000-square-foot freestanding building on the grounds of the existing high school. During that meeting, and during subsequent conversations with Ms McClure and School Superintendent Evan Pitkoff, the architect apparently indicated that the school district could enjoy the maximum level of state financial reimbursement for the project, if undertaken.

So why was this fifth option not presented to those gathered for last Monday’s public input session?

“You’ll have to contact the superintendent on that,” Ms McClure said. “The sheet [circulated] on Monday night was compiled by the administration.”

When contacted, Dr Pitkoff was quick to point out that the fifth option could have been included in the information packet Monday at the public input session.

“I would have liked to [include that option],” Dr Pitkoff said. “In hindsight, we could have added that on.”

The superintendent suggested that he neglected to include it because the Board of Ed had contracted the architect to provide both square footage and cost estimates on the four options that were presented. And since the board had not yet directed the architect to come up with cost options on the 88,000-square-foot option, he felt it should not be included.

“The 88,000-square-foot option is a possibility, but the board hasn’t given the architect authorization to start working on it,” Dr Pitkoff confirmed. “I would leave doing the math to the architect, but if a 66,000-square-foot building was going to cost $36 million, the 88,000-square-foot option would cost more.”

According to the handout at Monday’s session, and available to the public on the school district’s website, those four options included:

¶An off site satellite facility for 450–500 students at Fairfield Hills, ranging between 60,000 and 93,000 square feet and costing between $30 and $41 million before state reimbursement.

¶Additions and renovations to the high school of 66,000-square-feet at a cost of $35–$36 million before state reimbursement.

¶A new freestanding high school and relocation of the middle school at a cost of $150 million before state reimbursement.

¶A second full high school for 800–1,000 students at $60–$79 million exclusive of demolition and land costs.

The cover letter on the package indicates the document is not “all-inclusive, but should serve to stimulate public input.”

During the December 16 meeting, and in subsequent presentations to his board, the finance board, and the Legislative Council, Mr Rosenthal did the math himself on two 70,000-square-foot scenarios. One option, estimating today’s costs on the conservative side at $3.50 per square foot, he developed a proposed building cost at $24.5 million and at a high end cost of $4.25 per square foot, a cost of $29.75 million.

“It’s interesting that at that meeting we were shown estimates for a 48,000-square-foot building, which we were told at that time by the Board of Ed was the absolute cap for state reimbursement, that came out to $29 million,” Mr Rosenthal told The Bee Tuesday. “But when you look at the fine print, there is ten percent built-in for a design contingency, ten percent for construction contingencies, and ten percent included for owner’s contingency, plus a seven percent price escalation per year built-in for two-and-a-half years.

“That’s $9 million on $29 million for contingencies and price escalation,” he added.

Dr Pitkoff said that to date, the architect presented a positive outlook about getting the full state funding for the 88,000-square-foot option.

“He felt he could make a good case to the state, and we’re confident he can make the case,” Mr Pitkoff said.

Board of Education had nearly two months to clarify some of the details from the state since the architect’s suggestions during the December 16 meeting. Ms McClure was asked why the board had waited so long.

“There’s three catches,” she said. “We don’t know if it’s feasible. We want freshmen to take regular courses in the main building. And we want to use the [new facility] to accommodate overcrowding [among] upper classmen.”

She did say, however, that a new freestanding facility on the existing high school campus would have to accommodate not only the students, but the culinary program and its infrastructure as well.

News of the latest revelation on the 88,000-square-foot option raised the ire of school board member Paul Mangiafico, who had not heard about any discussions resulting from the December 16 meeting.

Mr Mangiafico, who opposed Ms McClure during the recent vote for the board’s chairmanship, said members of his board needed to be more forthcoming with information, not only to fellow board members, but to the public as well.

“We represent them. We are obliged to do the very best we can for the people of this town, then we’d have progress,” he said.

Mr Mangiafico said the chairman’s failure to discuss the option represented “a serious lack of communication that concerns me.”

“It appears, whether it is a viable plan or not, it is a significant option that should have been considered by the full board,” he said. “Expansion on the high school site with both [acceptable] size and costs, that could be satisfactory.”

Mr Mangiafico said that no matter who meets during “private meetings, whether it is the chair or not, that representative has an obligation to transfer or discuss that information with the rest of their [board].

“If that isn’t being done, it’s unacceptable,” he concluded.