Timeline (taken from Board of Education/Town Council meeting minutes)
Purple- Board of Education
Blue- Elementary Facilities Committee/Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting (it had 2 names over the years, but served the same purpose)
Red- Town Council
Green- Other
January 26, 2017
BOE Minutes
Enrollment Study
Mr. Connellan explained that a detailed enrollment study is necessary to acquire sufficient data on which the Board and the community would make decisions regarding the next steps to take with the remaining elementary schools that have not been renovated. Funding was included in the 2016-2017 budget to conduct the study. Mrs. Jennifer Mellitt, Accounting Southington Board of Education Minutes - January 26, 2017 6 Manager, along with the administrative team, developed a Request for Proposal (RFP) with specifications for the study. The RFP will be released by February 2, 2017. Mr. Connellan and Board members spoke at length regarding the enrollment study and getting community input moving forward with the important question of whether the town can sustain eight elementary schools. Mr. Goralski stated that an Enrollment Committee meeting would be held on March 15, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. with Board members present. He noted that Mrs. Albaitis would be polling the Board members for their availability on that date for presentations from three (3) vendors. Mrs. Lombardi noted that the state did an enrollment study with projections out to 2025 and they had Southington at an 18% enrollment decline based on the sources that the state was using. Mrs. Lombardi requested that when Southington' s RFP is released that sources for the external data that is used will be included along the year. Mr. Connellan agreed that it would be specified in the RFP that vendors identify their sources for their data. Mrs. Clark requested that the public be made aware that this enrollment study is a lengthy process that will not be decided overnight or happen by the end of this school year. Mr. Connellan added that he already has been meeting with PTOs and would put together a summary of his discussions with the PTOs including the timelines. This project would not be completed any sooner than the fall of 2019. Mr. Connellan stated that the end product would be valuable in guiding future discussions that will have a long-term and significant impact on the community. Mrs. Queen requested that Mr. Connellan put his summary on the home page of the Southington Public Schools website including the dates he meets with the PTOs.
February 27, 2017
Town Council Meeting Minutes
Mr. Pocock spoke
“I promised the parents at Kelley, Flanders & Derynoski
Schools that those needed to be addressed. We have not finished our
school projects the way they should be. Kelley and Flanders are a
mess. I don't believe it something that we should turn around and
ignore. They need to be done.
The Board of Education is working diligently to determine the
needs.
We need to prioritize that.”
October 26, 2017 (9 months later)
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
The Board members discussed under "Facilities, Part A", adding a fourth item "to begin developing a model for redistricting." Mr. Connellan stated that in March, Milone and McBroom would come back to the Board with the results of Phase II and explain what they see as the use of the buildings and what they would recommend for proposed redistricting. He explained that last year the General Assembly passed a law for universal preschool in all communities for ages three and four. Mr. Derynoski stated that with the housing development in town and enrollment, it would be a good time to look at the distribution of children and that as a goal the superintendent and his staff should get a jumpstart in putting together a plan for future redistricting. Mr. Connellan will add #4 to his 2017-2018 Facilities goals and ask Milone and Mc Broom if they can accelerate the Phase II study.
January 14, 2021 (3 years and 4 months later)
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
Mr. Connellan addressed the projected enrollment from the Milone & MacBroom report of June 6, 2019 with historical enrollment data, which will need to be updated to move forward with discussions about the elementary facilities.
Mr. Baczewski questioned the Milone & MacBroom projected enrollment numbers and to get a better gauge on the numbers, how they compared with the actual enrollment for the 2020-2021 school year. Mr. Connellan will provide that information; however, the mitigating factor would be the number of students who were remote learning.
May 13, 2021 (3 months later)
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Report ~ April 27, 2021 (no evidence of this meeting)
Mrs. Clark reported that the committee discussed the Collier presentation and that there were no questions received from other Board of Education members. The committee decided that they needed additional input and dialogue and discussed a presentation before theTown Council. The location of the Karen Smith Academy was discussed along with the possibility of developing education specifications for analysis and project costs. The superintendent will discuss with the Town Manager about a presentation at a Town Council meeting and the administration will continue to work with Colliers regarding additional information. The next virtual committee meeting will be Tuesday, May 18 at 4:00p.m.
May 24, 2021
Presentation to Town Council
Link:
2021 Presentation to Town Council
BOE FACILITIES COMMITTEE PRESENTATION
Colleen Clarke, Chair of the Elementary School Facility Committee, noted Messiers Connellan,
Medancy, Brown, and Sharnowsky were present, as well. Mr. Oshana, a member of the committee, was not present. Ms. Carmody is also present. And, two representatives from Collier and Associates were also present.
We are here to present the work of our committee thus far in order to facilitate communication
and transparency between the BOE and the Town Council. We have three elementary schools: Kelley, Flanders and Derynoski, which have not yet been renovated to 21st Century standards. Our committee has been exploring various scenarios since last year to determine potential solutions to bring our schools up to the standards our community expects and our children deserve.
Tonight, we are going to share the possibilities with you.
Superintendent Tim Connel Ian said this is to the council and the citizens of this community
about the efforts and information that the committee has been working on and submitted. There is a delay because of COVID.
We have eight elementary schools and five have been renovated. The two middle schools were
renovated. We now have three elementary schools that have not been touched. Derynoski was built in 1950 and Kelley and Flanders opened around 1967.
Again, this is all informational. There are 12 buildings we've taken into account that have
students in them. We are going to talk about the three elementary schools in particular.
(Hard copy of presentation slides attached hereto.) Attachment #3
Steve Madancy, assuming the role of Superintendent on July 1st. Looking forward to working
with all of you in the not-too-distant future. I am going to speak to what currently exits to speak to the need of the aging facilities we are talking about. Then I'll introduce the Collier representatives to provide more insight. What you hear tonight is where we are at this point in terms of the exploratory phase of this conversation/discussion that will change over time as we work with the state and get their feedback about what scenarios they favor and what lends itself to the best sense for the community in terms of the instructional needs of our students but also the financial commitment to the town.
Slides:
1. Outdated Entrances
2. Classrooms (not air conditioned, outdated furniture, etc.)
3. Exterior Envelope
4. Gym with VCT flooring
5. Media Centers (outdated and too small)
6. Outdated Electrical Equipment
7. Electrical heat throughout
8. Classroom - lacking sufficient storage
9. Classroom - outdated
10. Hallways with copiers
11. Restrooms outdated
12. Mechanicals - end of useful life
13. Outdated, inefficient boilers
Mr. Chuck Warrington from Colliers & Associates spoke about the following slides:
14. State of Connecticut Guidelines for Planning Projects
15. Space Standard Calculations
16. Renovation Status
17. Draft Scenarios
18. Assumptions for Range of Budgets
19. Scenario 1- Renovate Derynoski, Flanders & Kelley
20. Scenario 2 - Renovate Derynoski, Replace with new Kelley and abandon Flanders
21. Scenario 3 -Abandon Derynoski, Replace Flanders and Kelley with new
22. Scenario 4-Replace Derynoski and Kelley with new and abandon Flanders
23. Scenarios Summary
Questions, suggestions and comments by Councilman Chaplinsky and Dziedzic.
May 27, 2021
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Report ~ May 18, 2021 (no meeting minutes or agenda available)
Mrs. Clark reported that the committee discussed input received from a meeting with Colliers that included the Town Manager, Mark Sciota. Also discussed was an additional scenario using the Derynoski Elementary School site with information to be developed. The committee discussed the work that needed to be done to accommodate the Karen Smith Academy on the current site or on a different site. Mrs. Clark reported that Collier gave a presentation to theTown Council on Monday, May 24, 2021 presenting the facts and to begin the discussion on the elementary facilities. Mr. Connellan thought the presentation was well received and presented as indicated by responses by Town Councilors Ms. Triano and Mr. DelSanto. He stated that Mr. Chuck Warrington from The presentation will be sent in PDF form to the Town Council, Board of Finance, and Planning & Zoning members for the opportunity to ask questions. Mrs. Clark stated that the day after the presentation she sent a follow-up email to the Town Council to start the conversation. She had the impression that Town Councilors had heard gossip, rumors and wanted to make sure that they had the actual facts. As a point of clarification, Mr. Connellan stated that when the Collier people gave a presentation to the Board of Education at a Special Board Meeting in March, emails were sent to the entire Town Council and Board of Finance members inviting them to participate and the PDF presentation was forwarded to those elected officials at the same time. Monday night was not the first time that the elected officials received the presentation. He stated that this was a very important decision for the entire community just like what was done with the middle school renovations.
June 23, 2021
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
The Committee discussed scenarios and planning with the town's Economic Development Director, Mr. Louis Perillo. Consideration must be made for the mixed zoning currently existing on the Derynoski site. Additionally, it was recommended that the committee consider a habitat study. Finally, it was recommended that the committee consider unintended consequences relative to enrollment and future use of buildings or sites depending on the scenario adopted.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the recent Town Council presentation and timelines were revisited along with discussion about the upcoming state meeting with OSCG&R.
Lastly, discussion ensured about Pre-Referendum Summer Work related to the elementary facilities project and the importance of having certain information to further inform scenarios in play prior to the OSCG&R meeting in August. The scope of the work, along with funding sources will be brought to you as an agenda item later this evening.
(Meeting 70 minutes in length)
June 24, 2021
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Report June 22, 2021 Meeting
Mrs. Clark reported that the committee Economic Development Director, Mr. Louis Perillo, to see what the economic impact would be to the town depending upon the school discussed. The committee was still in the beginning stages of dialog and Mr. Perillo shared some very interesting points for further discussions. A handout was distributed to the Board regarding Pre-Referendum Summer Work related to the scope of the work and funding sources. Mrs. Clark noted a change in the schedule estimate for preliminary geo-technical borings, which was reduced. Mr. Madancy clarified that the overall price projected was correct and discussed timelines for the Board of Education and town.
October 28, 2021
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
Move to Approve the Superintendent’s Goals for the 2021 - 2022 school year.
MOTION: by Mr. Oshana, seconded by Mrs. Clark:
Mr. Derynoski questioned Goal #3 “The Superintendent ofSchools, in collaboration with the administration, Board of Education, town officials, and community members will work to improve district facilities including elementary buildings, athletic facilities, and the Karen Smith Academy” which he thought may not happen and was over extending, especially Goal #3.c, Develop educational specifications and review academic programming anticipating bringing Karen Smith Academy forward for consideration in the November 2022 referendum. Mr. Derynoski stated that there were elementary schools that needed work for many years before the Karen Smith Academy. He thought it should be a Board of Education goal to prioritize what steps that are needed to bring to the town. He thought to do them all at one time was not going to happen. Mr. Madancy stated that, per policy, there would be a mid-year discussion of these goals and if there were goals that were not progressing mid-year, they could re-visit that goal and move to 2023. He included the Karen Smith Academy, adjacent to DES, in the entire Derynoski School project for the potential of what would happen to the current Derynoski Elementary School vs. building a new school behind it and what the site plan would look like for the home of the Karen Smith Academy. He has had this conversation with theTown Manager because it involves the scope of the Derynoski project. Mr. Madancy explained that another goal of his was to collaborate with town officials and that he and Mr. Mark Sciota, Town Manager, addressed both attending Town Council and Board of Education meetings to foster partnership.
November 18, 2021
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
4. Elementary Facilities Project Update:
Mr. Madancy stated that now with a newly elected Board and the assignment of committees, the Elementary Facilities Project Committee could reconvene again. There was a setback when the state official, who oversaw the Office of Construction, resigned due to conflict with Governor Lamont. Two weeks prior to resigning, the state official was supposed to come to Southington to sign-off on the remaining three facilities that needed to be renovated-to-new or built as new construction. This has set the project timeline back to get a commitment from the state in order to move forward.
January 23, 2022
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
b. Elementary Facilities Project Update
Mr. Madancy stated that he and Mr. Mark Sciota, Town Manager, have been attending as a partnership between the Town and Board of Education to exchange information. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation is being posted on social media. They gave a lengthy update on the pre-referendum work for the Elementary Facilities Project explaining the problems and big shake-up at the state level that had delayed the Elementary Facilities Projects resulting in Southington losing three months of planning time that now would be rushed in order to meet deadlines to bring the project to referendum. They and other officials met with the state office of School Construction Grants (SCG) on Monday, January 20, 2022 and discussed new state requirements and other options moving forward.
Mr. Madancy explained what still needed to be completed for the Elementary Facilities Projects pre-referendum work for the community to be fully informed before bringing it to referendum in 2023. Mr. Madancy stated that the Board would need to take a consensus at their next meeting on January 27 because they adopted a Capital Improvement Plan that had those projects in different years, and it would need to be amended to be swapped around.
April 25, 2022
Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting
(No minutes, just an agenda found)
1.Call to Order
2.Representatives from Collier’s Group present to reconstitute timelines and actions associated with community engagement leading up to a November, 2023 referendum
3.Future meetings for Committee discussed/set
4.Meeting Adjourns
May 12, 2022
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting April 25, 2022
Mr. Madancy reported that this project and referendum was postponed due to the turmoil at the state level. The committee met with representatives from the Colliers Group and discussed revised timelines and actions needed for pre-referendum work for the November 2023 Referendum. The recently completed updated enrollment study will be presented to the Board at the May 26 Board of Education meeting. The committee discussed the transitions occurring at the state level and decided to hold off further discussion with the state until permanent leadership was in place in the State Office of School Construction. The next Elementary Facilities Committee meeting will be held on June 1, 2022, at 3:00pm via Zoom. Mrs. Carmody was pleased to have the enrollment data updated due to volatility in enrollment since the pandemic.
May 24, 2022
Meeting of the Chairs, Revised Special Meeting Minutes
This Thursday’s BOE meeting has budget reallocation and adoption as top items, second behind that is the updated enrollment study completed this past March. Projected enrollment of 400+ students over the next several years. The turnover in the housing market in Southington, thebirthratesin2021werethehighest since2006, and new developments in town are all contributing factors to the increase. The Elementary Facilities Committee meets on st June1 to start to discuss facility scenarios. In September they would like to have a larger community conversation about potential facility scenarios. The goal in pushing this to a 2023 referendum was to give the community time to engage. In next year’s reallocation plan there is a reduction in staff that will be part of the conversation onThursday evening. That is a reduction that we can handle.
June 8, 2022
Elementary Facilities Committee Agenda
(No minutes, not sure a meeting happened)
1.Call to Order
2.Enrollment Study Recap
3.Redistricting and Facility Scenarios
4.Timelines
5.Meeting Adjourns
June 9, 2022
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
Elementary Facilities Project: Mr. Madancy explained that the Elementary Facilities Project was shifted to a referendum in November 2023. The work during the summer would be to complete the pre-referendum work to begin to engage the community in conversations around the different scenarios being considered. He will give the Board an update in September.
August 11, 2022
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting June 8, 2022
Mr. Madancy reported that the committee met with Mr. Warrington andMr. Koplas from Colliers, andMr. Gallagher andMr. Zuba fromSLAM. Discussed was a recap of theEnrollment Study, redistricting, andfacility scenarios along with timelines in order to meet deadlines around Town Council authorization, bonding approval, and the 2023 Town Referendum. Draft scenarios will be shared with the full Board at a future BOE meeting.
October 17, 2022
Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting Agenda
(no minutes available)
1.Call to Order
2.SLAM Redistricting Scenario Review
3.Meeting Adjourns
November 10, 2022
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
c. Elementary Facilities Committee October 17, 2022
Mrs. Clark reported that the committee had met sporadically. At the October meeting they reviewed again the SLAM Redistricting Scenario and student population. Because of changes at the state level, the committee will meet with the state to discuss costs and to arrange for a presentation to the full Board. Mr. Derynoski questioned who was SLAM? Mrs. Clark stated that SLAM was part of Milone & MacBroom, a construction and engineering firm, which recently merged with SLR International Corporation.
January 12, 2023
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting December 12, 2022
Mr. Madancy reported that the committee met in December, after theNovember Referendum, and discussed the Athletic Facilities upgrades andTitleIX mandates that was voted down by the community. They also discussed the initial cost projections for the Elementary Facilities projects and current market rates, escalation of project costs and updated quotes for Derynoski and Kelley Elementary Schools and the Karen Smith Academy. He addressed debt service, and that the committee would be meeting with the state on February 14 with some scenarios to continue the conversation and would come back to the Board with new information.
December 12, 2022
Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting Agenda
(no minutes available)
1.Call to Order
2.Discussion of current market rates and updated quotes
3.Meeting Adjourn
January 12, 2023
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting December 12, 2022
Mr. Madancy reported that the committee met in December, after the November Referendum, and discussed the Athletic Facilities upgrades and Title IX mandates that was voted down by the community. They also discussed the initial cost projections for the Elementary Facilities projects and current market rates, escalation of project costs and updated quotes for Derynoski and Kelley Elementary Schools and the Karen Smith Academy. He addressed debt service, and that the committee would be meeting with the state on February 14 with some scenarios to continue the conversation and would come back to the Board with new information.
February 23, 2023
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
Elementary Facilities Review
Mr. Madancy explained that the Elementary Facilities Review was the first time to see this information and Projected Enrollment Study, which is half of the equation with the other half building usage and occupancy. This information helps the Board to make recommendations to the Town Board of Finance and Town Council for future building construction projects and the November 2023 Referendum. This information will be shared at a future parent forum. He introduced Mr. Patrick Gallagher, Lead Planner, from SLAM who gave a PowerPoint Presentation (Attachment #1) on various planning scenarios. Mr. Gallagher discussed at length the purpose of Scenario Planning, which will help define what those projects would be and the series of metrics to help understand the pros and cons of different scenarios and changes to the middle school feeder pattern, and the impact of redistricting. He discussed capacity for each building and room usage based on classroom size policy. His presentation used three color-coded blocks to identify scenarios as maintaining the status quo, building new, or renovate-to-new, and closing a facility based on assumptions and looking at five years out to 2026-2027 from the initial enrollment projections. He discussed in detail the various scenarios that included conceptual boundaries, pocket redistricting, feasibility, and middle school feeder patterns:
Status Quo No Change
ScenarioA: Maintaining and alignment of the eight (8) elementary schools with three building projects Derynoski, Flanders and Kelley.
Scenario B Seven (7) elementary schools (closing Flanders) with two (2) building projects Kelley and Derynoski.
Scenario C Seven (7) elementary schools (closing Flanders) with two (2) building projects Derynoski and making Kelley larger.
Scenario D Severn (7) Elementary Schools (Close Flanders), Smaller Derynoski with South End Addition with three (3) building projects Kelley, Derynoski, and South End.
Mr. Gallagher provided a matrix comparing the five scenarios with scenario description and objectives. Mr. Baczewski questioned how the decision was made on what school to close. Mr. Madancy replied in detail on the pre-referendum engineering-type of work of the sites that was done to come to the conclusions. Based on conversations with the state and the Capital Plan with one construction project, the recommendation would be for Kelley Elementary School. He noted that there would be public hearings with Planning & Zoning, Board of Finance, and Town Council.
Mr. Carson emphasized that this was a Feasibility Study and decisions have not been made yet. He thought that it needed to be made clear that a lot is determined on conversations at the state level based on strategy, reimbursement rates, and construction ideology to make the best decision for the school district and community. Mr. Madancy pointed out that the state indicated it was up to the community to decide on new construction or renovate-to-new. He addressed the next important piece was to invite Mr. Gallagher back to a Community Forum and explain how the different scenarios were determined. Mr. Madancy noted that the district enrollment fluctuates and was not decreasing. Mr. Derynoski stated that the Board needed to focus on the timing with the state, which was critical, the referendum, increased enrollment with new home developments being built and to do initial planning for redistricting because they currently have issues resulting in increased transportation costs.
February 27, 2023
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
1.Meeting called to order at 4:00pm. Superintendent discussed vision for
committee which includes cross collaboration across elected and town officials,
prioritizing district facilities projects that would impact town’s debt service.
Additionally, conversations relative to elementary facilities have been limited
to those on the Elementary Facilities Committee to date which has resulted in
limited townwide and community awareness and understanding of timelines
and rationale of any major construction projects to this point. BOE
representation from that committee is now merged on to this committee and
that committee has been discharged of its exclusive duties. BOE Chair also
highlighted importance of community involvement, hence intention to invite 3
community representatives to committee.
2. Committee discussed FY 24 capital projects for BOE and Town and Nov 23
referendum. Timelines associated with KES school construction project were
discussed and agreed on. Times and locations TBD.
(Meeting 35 minutes)
March 23, 2023
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. District-wideFacilities Committee Meeting February 27, 2023
Mr. Madancy reported that along with the Elementary Facilities Project the committee also discussed FCapital Plan Projects. The committee recommends including theTown Board of Finance and Town Council in partnership on all these projects because the projects include debt service that impact operating budgets. He addressed timelines and processes if the projects were to go to Referendum. The next District-WideFacilities Committee meeting has not been scheduled. Mr. Carson questioned if there was feedback and guidance from the state regarding Renovate-to-New versus New Construction. Mr. Madancy stated that he would address that later on the agenda.
New Business:
Elementary Facilities Report:
Mr. Madancy reported that district officials met with the state on February 14, 2023 after last year putting the projects on hold due to uncertainty at the state level with personnel changes. He explained that there are ongoing changes of personnel at the state level and how uncertainty at the state level effected other school districts that moved forward with school construction last year. The person that they recently met at the state Department of Administrative Services told them that the state would not advise the district to Renovate-to-New or build New and that the decision was up to the town after costing out scenarios and other considerations. However, the person that they met with resigned shortly after that meeting, which leave still uncertainty on how to proceed and how much they would receive from the state. The current challenge was to meet the June 30 deadline to submit an application to the state to be considered for a December approval to be placed on the priority list. He noted that the challenge with the costing out of the different scenarios was that there was no scenario where all three of the school projects were going to be done at one time and whether the project would be Renovate-to-New or New Construction. Mr. Madancy noted that Colliers was still working on forecasting out what the cost of the various scenarios would be if one scenario was to be adopted. He addressed debt service, state grant reimbursement, pre-referendum work, uncertainty at the state level, the three elementary schools in need of work, outdated electrical loads, and equitable experiences. Mr. Carson questioned if the state reimbursed for demolition costs when there was new construction. Mr. Baczewski proposed a rendition of temporarily closing Flanders, demolition of Flanders and rebuilding new on the site. He stated that he preferred neighborhood schools. Mr. Carson stated that he attended a Planning & Zoning meeting where they approved the apartment complex on West Street with 255 units and the expectation was that the project would only generate 13 additional students into the school district. One of his concerns was for affordable housing in town and the West Street project was approved with a 10% density of affordable housing.
April 4, 2023
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
2. Follow-up to recent Community Forum and BOE Meeting
a. The committee discussed recent attendance at the Community Forum
where SLAM presented the various scenarios associated with
elementary construction projects. There were about 20 parents present
at this forum. Unfortunately, something occurred with the video
equipment and although the forum was streamed and recorded, no
sound was captured. In order to ensure information was shared with
the larger community the superintendent sent out the 2 prior
presentations done for the Board on Enrollment and Facilities and has
also built out the homepage of the website with all associated
Elementary Project Information.
3. Consideration and discussion of timelines for grant application
submission and referendum
a. The committee discussed the upcoming deadline for the grant
submission and the tight timelines associated with an application
submission given that the Board has yet to endorse any specific
scenario given the following:
i. Enrollment projections not supporting closing of a school.
ii. Current cost of new construction is 495 sq. ft. which will have
a major impact on town debt service which has already been a
challenge to navigate relative to BOE and Town Operating
budgets during the current fiscal year.
iii. Continued uncertainty at the state level with yet another
turnover in OSCGR leadership.
iv. Concern over closing a neighborhood school and/or building
larger elementary schools.
With the committee reaching consensus to hold off on a June 2023 grant
application for school construction, discussion continued relative to timing
and referendum dates of November 2023, consideration of a special
referendum for May 2024, with a June 2024 application submission, or the
need to wait until 2025 given the town’s commitment to paving referendums
every 4 years and not wanting to combine requests for funding to the
community.
4. Discussion of Master Districtwide Facilities Plan
a. The committee agreed that although future construction is imminent
and needed, prioritizing all projects including:
School Construction
i. Hardening of entry ways
ii. Ongoing roof replacements
iii. Athletic facilities projects
iv. Various paving projects
v. Installation of upgraded HVAC in all elementary schools.
A comprehensive DW Master facilities plan that effectively priorities
and costs out projects with inflation accounted for is needed to better
inform the community of needs and larger scope of work needed
leading up to referendums.
(Meeting 70 minutes)
June 7, 2023
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
Discussion of potential Nov 23 referendum items limited to high priority
athletic facility items and bonding /cash funding versus current capital plan
timelines.
Recommendation of committee was to bring revised timeline below to the
next Committee of the Chairs for further discussion across elected Boards.
Proposal for discussion includes:
• Cash funding lights for softball field with current funds from re-
allocation to complete work in summer/fall 2023
o $350,000
• Tennis courts 2024 with bonding. Total project cost, but with
engineering costs removed
o $950,000
• Track 2025 with bonding.
o $706,000
• Bleachers/Press box 2026 with bonding.
o $822,300
Consideration for cash funding in bleachers 2025. Timing makes most sense
given planned turf replacement for 2025.
The bonding process above allows project completion without interfering
with current projected referendums of road paving in 2024 and elementary
schools in 2025.
3. Meeting Adjourned 4:45pm
(Meeting 45 minutes, nothing discussed on Elementary Schools)
August 17, 2023
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting June 7, 2023
Mr. Madancy reported that the committee met and discussed the potential high priority November referendum items for the SHS Athletic Facility and bonding/cash funding versus current Capital Plan timelines. The recommendation was to bring the revised timelines to the next Committee of the Chairs meeting for further discussion. The proposals for discussion included lights for the softball field (with current funds from reallocation in 2023), tennis courts 2024 with bonding), track (2025 with bonding), and bleachers/press box (2026 with bonding or 2025 with cash funding).
December 18, 2023
Districtwide Facilities Committee Minutes
Introduction of members/guests from SLAM
3. Review of recent/past work to date with SLAM
a. SLAM presented slides (attached) summarizing and recapping
recent facilities study work done relative to the elementary
schools and enrollment.
4. Overview of Master Facilities Plan process.
a. Slides included.
5. Discuss the timeline and items to be included within the plan.
a. Committee agreed that more time in person was needed. SPS
administration would seek available dates from SLAM and
schedule time to discuss priorities of projects as well as
associated costs.
6. Townwide communication re: Committee meetings and outcomes
a. Discussed the importance of members of the committee
attending the meetings to share with members of their elected
Boards as meetings occurred, as they would eventually be
viewing and providing feedback on a master facilities plan.
(Meeting 68 minutes- no attachment included in minutes)
New Plan created by Colliers
Link:
February 21, 2024
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
Consensus on Master Planning Considerations & Parameters.
The meeting revolved around planning parameters for a master plan and
considerations for school construction projects. Participants discussed aligning
capacity with enrollment, balancing attendance zones, maximizing grant funds,
improving facility operations, eliminating satellite areas in schools, and better
aligning elementary and middle school attendance zones. There was also
discussion about the importance of cost-effective solutions and whether to
maintain neighborhood schools or consolidate into larger ones. The committee
emphasized the need for data analysis and cost evaluation before making any
decisions. While there was mention of budgeted renovations, there were doubts
about support for building three new schools. Suggestions were made to focus
on two schools that meet the needs of the study, with the possibility of future
expansion if necessary.
3. Consensus on project timeline and process (June 2025)
Paul Chaplinsky suggested initially focusing on building two schools and
considering building three schools if it is more cost-effective. Steven Madancy
emphasized the need for a decision to be made by spring to meet deadlines for
public hearings, bonding authorization, and grant applications. Pat Gallagher
discussed different scenarios and their costs, emphasizing the importance of
balancing efficiency and utilization. Chuck Warrington highlighted the
importance of comparing maintenance costs to inform future decisions.
Colleen Clark raised questions about neighborhood schools, utilization,
redistricting, and underbuilding. Paul Chaplinsky raised concerns about low
utilization rates and suggested considering options for efficiency. Zaya Oshana
expressed opposition to the idea of building mega schools.
(Meeting 1 hour)
March 27, 2024
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
1. Call to Order
2. Review and discussion of various Scenarios as presented by Colliers
3. Discussion of Future Cost Avoidance Proposal and associated costs
4. Discussion of timelines and process-associated scenarios
5. Meeting Adjourns
(No meeting minutes actually listed, just the agenda- so not sure a meeting actually happened)
May 16, 2024
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
1. Call to Order at
2. Review and discussion of draft ed specs and budget projections for Derynoski Elementary
School
3. Review and discussion of draft ed specs and budget projections for Kelley Elementary School
4. Discussion of timelines
5. Meeting Adjourns
(No meeting minutes, so do not long how the meeting went or what was actually discussed)
January 14, 2025 ( 8 months from last meeting and no updates about these meetings at BOE meetings)
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
1.Debt Service Review
Jennifer Mellitt presented an updated debt service analysis confirming that, given the policy limits and associated debt service costs, it is not feasible to complete the KES and DES projects simultaneously. Given this, Jen presented a revised timeline (Attached) highlighting when the DES project could be done and keeping the town within the debt service policy limit.
2. KES / South End Scenario Review
Charles Warrington presented an updated scenario that still involves the KES project going forward to application submission in June 2025 and referendum 2025. The scenario includes cost estimates and factoring in the escalation costs for doing DES at a later date.
The updated scenario has KES's new construction and South End build-out occurring first, allowing for redistricting and school consolidation, coupled with a future DES/KSA project.
Charles also reviewed the project schedule and associated timelines we would need to be conscious of to keep the project on track with associated timelines.
3. Committee Discussion
While the information provides the committee with an appropriate rationale to shift the recommendation from the fall now that the debt service analysis confirms this would need to occur, the committee could not reach a consensus or make any recommendations given the lack of quorum. The committee agreed that this presents a couple of challenges:
This committee can only recommend; it is ultimately up to the entire Board. There is only one meeting currently scheduled in February (February 27th). This places us in a very tight timeframe compared to all the other actions that will need to occur, leading to application submission by June 30th to present a recommendation to the full Board, we must schedule
another DW Facilities Committee meeting soon and then a special Board meeting to review and discuss the recommended scenario.
(Meeting 1 hour)
January 23, 2025 (1 year and 5 months since last BOE update)
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
b.Districtwide Facilities Meeting - January 14, 2025
Mr. Madancy spoke about last spring when they investigated the construction of a new Derynoski Elementary and a new Kelly Elementary School simultaneously in the hopes it would save money on escalation costs. After doing a debt service analysis it was clear the allotted 9.5% debt service limit would be exceeded if both schools were done at the same time.Mr. Madancy thanked Mrs. Mellitt for all her hard work on the project.Mrs. Mellitt concluded we could do Kelley Elementary School in 2025 along with a South End build-out.The updated scenario has new construction and South End build-out first, allowing for redistricting and school consolidation, coupled with a future Derynoski. Mr. Madancy then spoke about the timeline and indicated a special meeting may need to be held to share the information with the Board but also allow for some public engagement and comment.There is a June 30 grant application deadline. A Districtwide Facilities Meeting will be held in the near future so a quorum can be held.The recommendation will then be brought to the Board for deliberation and possible action. Mr. Carson asked for clarification on the 9.5% debt service analysis. Mr. Madancy will get back to Mr. Carson with the date the limitation was made.Mrs. Clark explained the 9.5% has to do with the Towns bond rating; they did not want to impact the rating by changing the policy. Mr. Whitehead asked to clarify what the special meeting would be held to decide. Mr. Madancy replied, it would be for the approval of the school construction projects.The decision on redistricting could happen on a later date. Mr. Madancy will provide the committee’s recommendation once they meet.
February 20, 2025
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
Review and Discussion of Scenarios Against Debt Service. There was recap that in the
previous meeting, the debt service models run showed that doing two building projects
simultaneously would put the town over its debt service policy limit of 9.5%.
3. KES / South End Scenario Review
Colliers shared a side-by-side comparison of costs associated with renovate to new, and
new construction. (Slide attached to these meeting minutes)
It was shared that costs as presented do not include bonding and financing costs. The
question was posed as to who pays for those costs. The consultant shared that the town
pays for those costs as they are ineligible cost for reimbursement by the state.
Need clarification on whether portables are eligible for reimbursement from the state.
Question on how long renovate to new building would be expected to perform or last.
Answer, by statute the district would not be able to pursue any further projects related to
a renovate to new building for at least 20 years.
Pros and Cons of renovate to new vs. new construction were reviewed and discussed.
(Also attached)
A consensus was taken by the Board Chair. All 5 committee members in attendance
endorsed the concept of new construction versus renovating to new.
Timelines and tasks to be completed leading up to the grant application submission
deadline were discussed.
(Meeting 65 minutes)
February 24, 2025
Town Council Meeting Minutes
C. Board of Education Districtwide Facilities Committee
Mr. Ricciardone states they met last week. He states it’s been kicked around for many, many years, talk of what they should do for our elementary schools. Most have been updated in the last 20 years with Kelley, Derynoski and Flanders schools still not updated. They all pre-date the 1960’s. The committee had a robust discussion and met with planners and architects. They will be bringing forward a recommendation to the Board of Education at their next meeting. He adds that everyone is in agreement that the Board of Education is the rightful body to make the final recommendation to the town council.
Presentation to Town
April 1, 2025
No minutes available. Link to entire meeting: Meeting 4/1/25
Link to Presentation: Presentation 4/1/25
May 8, 2025
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. District-wide Facilities
1. Elementary School Construction:
Mrs. Clark indicated everyone agreed at the workshop that Kelley School needs new construction and South End needs a build-out. The consensus for a timeline would be to hold the referendum in May of 2026.
Mr. Madancy clarified, when the Board approves a scenario, that scenario will be what he will bring to the Town Council. The Board will direct Mr. Madancy to bring the recommendation of the project to the Town Council for May 2026. The purpose is to redistrict the elementary schools but also keep all the schools comparable in size; this is why a new Kelley and a build-out of South End need to happen at the same time.
The Board voted on Phase One in order to move forward with a referendum date in May 2026 knowing things can still change and further discussion will continue to happen for Phase Two.
MOTION made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mr. Williams, "The BOE recommends to the Town Council that we proceed with a construction of a new Kelley School and also the build-out of South End School."
January 27, 2026
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
The Public Facilities Committee met to review the status of the district’s school facilities planning
and to identify remaining decisions and information needed to advance a school construction project to a town referendum. The discussion focused on alignment between the district’s facilities plan, state school construction grant requirements, enrollment projections, and Town Council expectations for bonding authorization.
The committee reviewed prior actions taken in the spring. On April 1, the Board received
presentations on facilities usage, enrollment projections, and a “do nothing” cost baseline for the
elementary schools. Follow-up discussion occurred at an April 24 workshop. On May 8, the Board unanimously approved Phase 1 of the facilities plan, consisting of construction of a new Kelley Elementary School and an expansion of South End Elementary School, with the intent of proceeding toward a referendum.
Referendum timing and legal constraints were discussed. A May referendum was originally
considered; however, blackout period restrictions for town-paid officials and procedural
requirements may necessitate a later date. Early June was discussed as a possible alternative, with associated adjustments to blackout timelines. The committee noted required town processes, including ordinance language, bonding schedules, public hearings, required notices, and Town Clerk certification. The cost of conducting a special referendum was noted as significant and requiring confirmation of budget availability. The superintendent and consultant reviewed the state school construction grant process for Kelley Elementary School. While Phase 2 decisions are not finalized, the state increasingly expects a district-wide facilities plan. Enrollment projections will be included in the application, with Kelley’s planning enrollment currently identified as approximately 494 students, representing the projected eight-year high. For grant purposes, Year 1 of the enrollment window would begin in fall 2026.
The committee discussed the relationship between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Town Council Chairperson indicated a need for clarity on the district’s long-term facilities plan before authorizing bonding and allowing a referendum. The feasibility of advancing Phase 1 without a defined Phase 2 was discussed, particularly as it relates to consolidation and redistricting.
Scenario D2 was identified as the preferred planning direction. Under this scenario, Phase 1 includes a new Kelley Elementary School, the South End expansion, and redistricting. Phase 2 anticipates the closure of Flanders Elementary School, with a longer-term plan to construct a new Derynoski Elementary School on the lower Derynoski field. Site constraints at Flanders and community considerations related to potential school closures were discussed.
Reuse and repurposing of any closed school building was identified as a significant factor in
community acceptance. Potential reuse concepts discussed included affordable housing in
partnership with the Housing Authority and preservation of community spaces such as gymnasium and auditorium facilities for Derynoski Elementary School. The committee noted that Town Council assurances regarding future use of closed school properties could mitigate community concerns. The committee briefly discussed construction logistics, including the possible use of existing buildings as swing space, and identified unresolved questions related to facilities planning for Karen Smith Academy under Scenario D2.
By consensus, the committee agreed to advance Scenario D2 as the recommended planning
direction. It was also agreed to add facilities planning to the February 5 special meeting agenda and to provide Board members access to previously recorded presentations in advance. The
superintendent will coordinate updates to cost estimates, ensure referendum figures are accurate, and work with the district’s finance and bonding representatives to confirm timelines and funding for referendum-related expenses.
February 9, 2026
Town Council Meeting Minutes
C. Board of Education Elementary School Referendum
Mrs. Marino states the Board of Education met last week and reintroduced a possible referendum on the rehabilitation and expansion of South End School, the building of a new, larger Kelley School on the current property and closing Flanders School and redistricting. They plan on making the final decision at their next meeting on February 19. Mr. Chaplinsky states he put this on the agenda this evening as a first read for the council. He states that eventually if the Board of Education makes a decision on a referendum it will then come here and the council will have to create some referendum language and then will have to take it up and disposition it. He adds that he’s had some discussions about the referendum with some Board ofEducation members and the proposal that was made by the committee to the Board of Education is to build a brand new Kelley School on the existing property and build out the lower level of South End School. Those two together would be the first referendum item. He adds that Derynoski is only at 70 percent capacity right now. The proposal also includes closing Flanders School and redistrict utilizing the new larger Kelley School, using the larger South End School with the new buildout, and using the additional capacity at Derynoski School. The second referendum would be building a new smaller Derynoski School on the current property. He states the question that is in front of the Board of Education right now is the Kelley School, South End School and redistricting. He asks what everyone is thinking for Flanders School. He asks the council to think about it. He states if they close Flanders School then the building becomes the town’s building and asks what they would do with the building.
February 19, 2026
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
d. Communications from Public - Agenda Items Only
Kimberly Troccolo, 211 Crest Road, Southington, CT 06489.
Ms. Troccolo expressed her concerns about closing Flanders Elementary School. She feels the
decision to close Flanders in order to gain some funding, redistricting and on paper increasing
building utilization will negatively impact Southington Schools as a whole.
Traci Ianni, 46 Alpine Trail, Plantsville CT 06479.
Ms. Ianni voiced her opposition to closing Flanders Elementary School. A renovation or rebuild of Flanders is an investment worth making for Southington's future; she does not want to see more residential building. She also brought up the concern of enrollment projections. She urges the Board to look beyond money only and reconsider other options.
Shama Green, 67 Memorial Drive, Southington, CT 06489.
Ms. Green expressed feeling unheard and dismissed after reaching out to the Board
Members and receiving no response. She believes the responsibility to inform,
communicate and engage belongs to the elected officials. There is an issue with
process and transparency regarding research for the upcoming referendum.
Residents deserve detailed, current and transparent information.
Sherrie Shover, 60 Tanglewood Drive, Southington, CT 06489.
Ms. Shover asked the Board members not just to weigh the numbers when
considering closing Flanders School but also the impact on the children. Flanders
represents stability, community and a place where children are known as
individuals. Consolidation of schools would push utilization resulting in students in
places that were never designed to be classrooms.
Michele Otero, 580 Andrews Street, Southington, CT 06489.
Ms. Otero spoke in disagreement of closing Flanders Elementary School; she
believes closing any school is wrong as it will result in large class sizes. Residents
buy houses for the school system; Flanders is a family-oriented school. The Board
should think about what is best for the students and closing Flanders will affect
every other school in the district.
Angela Lauretano, 87 Hitchcock Road, Southington, CT 06489.
Ms. Lauretano expressed her support in moving forward with the project for a
proposed referendum in June. This plan will be a benefit for students in Southington
for decades to come. Information has been presented, data has been continuously
updated, many options have been explored; this plan is the least destructive and
most cost effective. Students, teachers, and staff deserve to have a safe, up-to-date
school.
Megan Mele, 545 West Street, Southington, CT 06489
Ms. Mele spoke in support of rebuilding Kelley Elementary School. There is a great
need for facility improvements. Rebuilding Kelley will allow modernizing learning
spaces, improve efficiency, and better align capacity with enrollment. The facility
should be used strategically rather than reactively. Continuing to delay this item will
only increase costs for the future.
Seth Korn, 8 Yorktown Road, Southington, CT 06489.
Mr. Korn spoke in support of moving forward with plan D2 with a referendum in
June 2026. The time is now to proceed with Elementary School Project. He would like to collaborate and work with the Board to see the project through; it is in the best interests of students and the community for generations to come.
8. Committee Reports
a. Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting - January 27, 2026
Mr. Madancy referred to the Minutes from the Districtwide Facilities meeting that
were presented at the Special BOE Meeting on February 5, 2026. A decision needed
to be made at this meeting on February 19, 2026, regarding Phase 2 of the facilities
plan in order to move forward with a referendum in June 2026.
Attachments: (1)
Mr. Carson wanted an explanation regarding the committee briefly discussed and
identified unresolves questions related to facilities planning for Karen Smith
Academy (KSA) under scenario D2. Mr. Madancy clarified under Phase 2 there
would be a new KSA Facility built on the lower portion of the Derynoski lot along
with a new Derynoski.
b. Adoption of Districtwide Facilities Committee Recommended Master Facility Plan
Mr. Madancy introduced Pat Gallagher from MP Planning Group and Charles
Warrington from Colliers to give a presentation on updated information regarding
the Elementary Facilities Plan, Phase 2 and its estimated costs.
Mr. Gallagher presented the following:
• Background and process
o Phase I - Conditions and Trends
o Phase 2 -Assessing options
o Phase 3 - Preferred option and grant application
• Status Quo
o What happens if we do nothing
• What scenarios were considered
o Status Quo
o Scenario A
o Scenario B
o Scenario C
o Scenario D
• Why close Flanders
o Allows district to "right size" portfolio to enrollment
o Flanders has the smallest current and projected enrollment
o Location to other schools
o Kelley site is more favorable to construction
o Flander is smaller with an irregularly shaped site
• Recommended Scenario D - timeline
o Phase 1 - referendum 2026
o Facility consolidation - fall 2030
o Phase 2 - TBD
• Recommended Scenario D - Take aways
o Meets 21 st century teaching and learning needs
o Efficient Operation
o Effective Cost
o Parity
Mr. Warrington presented the following:
• Recommended Scenario D - Total costs
o New Kelley and South End Build-out
■ Estimated District Share $43.9 million
o New Derynoski and KSA
■ Estimated District Share - $60.5 million
o Total cost for Scenario D
■ Estimated District Share $104.3 million
o Timeline descriptions
■ June 2026 referendum
■ Grant application
■ Construction starts
■ Redistricting
Attachments: (1)
Mr. Carson asked about the potential additional 15% reimbursement for early
childhood education legislation. Mr. Warrington clarified this would be determined
in the overall reimbursement rate for new facility construction. Mr. Carson also
asked about the space waiver determination. Mr. Warrington would anticipate in the
Spring of 2027.
MOTION made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mrs. Carmody, "Move that
the Board of Education reapprove Phase 1 of the Districtwide Facilities
Committee Plan which included the building of a new Kelley School on the
Kelley property, demolish the old Kelley School, upon completion and complete
the build-out of South End School of the additional classrooms."
Mrs. Clark indicated this motion was already made and approved.
Mr. Brown and Mrs. Carmody withdrew the motion.
Mr. Oshana confirmed the Board already approved that motion in May of 2025.
MOTION made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mrs. Carmody, "Move that
the Board of Education approve the Districtwide Facilities Committee Master
Plan option as described in the plan document with the understanding that
Phase 1 has already been approved. This plan is a future-looking plan and as
conditions change over time will be reviewed again at the time when action will
need to be taken."
Mrs. Clark indicated that the motion did not explain what the plan for Phase 2 is.
There was no mention of D2 or the details of what was going to happen.
Mr. Brown and Mrs. Carmody withdrew the motion.
MOTION made by Mrs. Clark and seconded by Mr. Baczewski, "Recommend
that the Board of Education adopt the Districtwide Facilities Committee
Recommendation of the Master Facility Plan which includes two phases. Phase
1 is a recommendation that the Town of Southington has a 2026 Spring
referendum for the construction of a new larger Kelley Elementary School and
an interior expansion of the lower level of South End Elementary School. Upon
completion of the construction, Flanders Elementary School would close and
there would be redistricting of the seven remaining elementary schools. Phase 2
Includes a second referendum at a date TBD building a new Derynoski
Elementary and Karen Smith Academy on the lower level of the Derynoski
site."
Mr. Baczewski noted this is not something the Board has been secretive about. This
has been a transparent process, and they have encouraged people to come and
comment. Every decision that the Board comes to is not decided solely on fiscal
responsibility. The Board must be able to make reasonable decisions about where
dollars go and how things get shifted from year to year. He doesn't want to do too
much at one time and thinks what has been presented is a reasonable option. He
doesn't like the idea of closing a school, we have to do what it is right for right now.
In the future, things can change and maybe they reopen an elementary school.
Mrs. Clark stated this is a hard decision. None of it has been done in secret and all
the information is available to the public. The Board is trying to make a decision that
is equitable for everyone.
Mr. Whitehead identified how North Center School has been repurposed as the
Municipal Center. He has full confidence that the town will do the right thing. The
public has been heard but if the Municipal Center is an example of what can happen
with Flanders in the future, it is a pretty good future indicator of what can potentially
be done.
Ms. Cammuso is all for a neighborhood school and keeping a sense of community.
She believes putting fourth a new Kelley School and South End build-out into the
referendum is critical. It is tough talking about closing a school because there is so
much emotion. Children bounce back easier than adults; when they go to a new
school they will make friends and have fun. The school being repurposed and open
space would be beneficial to the community. Enrollment projections can change in 5
to 6 years when another Board will need to make a decision about a new Derynoski
and KSA to bring to referendum. This plan is what fits the community best at this
point in time and it is not just fiscal.
Mr. Brown indicated both parties agree on the first phase of this plan. It is
interesting and a big price tag to maintain the old buildings in the "do nothing"
scenario. A reputable company was hired that has done a lot of research, there were
public hearings, and the Board has been very transparent with the plan. He agrees
and would recommend the town not making the Flanders property residential. The
Board is in agreement it should be used as open space or repurposed for the
community.
Mrs. Carmody expressed the main concern of the Board is to do what is best for the
children in the community. There are mixed feelings about parts of the plan, and no
one wants to see a school close, but everyone wants to do what is best for the future
of Southington.
Mr. Carson expressed with the circumstances of Federal and State education
funding, the time is now, and the time is right. No one knows what the future holds,
but this Master Plan has the best chance of being reimbursed at the highest rate. This
is the most advantages and fiscally responsible plan for parents who have students in
the district but also taxpayers who don't have students in the district. This plan and
the decision leading up to it has been very intentional. The entire district and the
school within it are all community neighborhood, schools. He trusts that the town
will do the right thing with repurposing town owned public buildings. Memories and
relationships are not lost with the moving or closing of a physical building.
Mr. Oshana thanked all members of the Districtwide Facilities Committee. The
meetings have been open and transparent to the public. A determination has not been
made of what will happen with the Flanders property. It is already town property so
it wouldn't need to be purchased as open space and hopefully the building can be
repurposed as some sort of community center.
Roll Call:
• Mr. Baczewski: Yes
• Mr. Brown: Yes
• Ms. Cammuso: Yes
• Mrs. Carmody: Yes
• Mr. Carson: Yes
• Mrs. Clark: Yes
• Mrs. Derynoski-Anastasio: No
• Mr. Oshana: Yes
• Mr. Whitehead: Yes
Motion carried 8-1
Letter from Mrs. Derynoski-Anastasio on why she voted no: Letter from Mrs. Derynoski- Anastasio
The elementary facilities plan is an ambitious proposal to rebuild schools that could cost local taxpayers more than $100 million dollars. When accounting for possible cost overruns and inflation, the impact on local taxes may be even greater. This proposal is complicated and contains numerous uncertainties.
Having been elected just three and a half months ago, I have worked very hard to get caught up to speed on decisions and discussions that took place over the past two years, before I recently re-joined the Board of Education again. This is why I have several concerns that prevented me from voting yes, this evening.
First, I strongly support the concept of small neighborhood elementary schools. Closing Flanders elementary school while expanding Kelly elementary school and creating an even larger South End elementary school moves us away from that model.
Second, abandoning a well-constructed brick school in the center of town presents a significant concern. As a Board of Education member, I have never received complaints about Derynoski elementary school. Building a new school behind the existing site raises additional questions and concerns. As a lifelong resident of Southington, I have heard that the property may have a high-water table that could make construction challenging. I do not know if that is accurate, but it is an uncertainty that deserves clarity.
Let me be clear: I support rebuilding Flanders and Kelly elementary schools. However, I do not support constructing larger elementary schools that fail to preserve the advantages of smaller neighborhood schools.Southington already has a large high school and two very large middle schools.
Modern and well-maintained schools are essential for a thriving community. I would support a plan to rebuild Flanders now if one were presented. Unfortunately, the option before us does not allow for that. I support upgrading Kelly, but not in a way that closes Flanders, increases busing times, eliminates walkability, and leaves major unanswered questions about the future of the Derynoski and Flanders properties.
What happens to the existing Derynoski building? Will the Main Street school be demolished or sold for private development? What becomes of the 17 acres of Flanders property? These questions remain unanswered.
Prior to proceeding, it is important to ensure meaningful community outreach and dialogue, enabling the Board of Education to clearly and effectively communicate its vision regarding these properties to both municipal leaders and residents.
For these reasons, I cannot support the plan as presented tonight.
I understand that voting against the majority on an issue like this can be politically difficult. My responsibility, however, is to vote on what I believe is best for the children of the Southington Public School system. I hope my colleagues will respect that position and avoid unnecessary political attacks and division.
I want to thank the many residents who have reached out to share their perspectives. Their input reflects a deep commitment to our schools, our children, and the dedicated staff who serve them every day.
Sincerely,
Dawn Derynoski-Anastasio
March 9, 2026
Town Council Meeting Minutes
B. Elementary School Bond Ordinance Introduction Timeline (taken from Board of Education/Town Council meeting minutes)
Purple- Board of Education
Blue- Elementary Facilities Committee/Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting (it had 2 names over the years, but served the same purpose)
Red- Town Council
Green- Other
January 26, 2017
BOE Minutes
Enrollment Study
Mr. Connellan explained that a detailed enrollment study is necessary to acquire sufficient data on which the Board and the community would make decisions regarding the next steps to take with the remaining elementary schools that have not been renovated. Funding was included in the 2016-2017 budget to conduct the study. Mrs. Jennifer Mellitt, Accounting Southington Board of Education Minutes - January 26, 2017 6 Manager, along with the administrative team, developed a Request for Proposal (RFP) with specifications for the study. The RFP will be released by February 2, 2017. Mr. Connellan and Board members spoke at length regarding the enrollment study and getting community input moving forward with the important question of whether the town can sustain eight elementary schools. Mr. Goralski stated that an Enrollment Committee meeting would be held on March 15, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. with Board members present. He noted that Mrs. Albaitis would be polling the Board members for their availability on that date for presentations from three (3) vendors. Mrs. Lombardi noted that the state did an enrollment study with projections out to 2025 and they had Southington at an 18% enrollment decline based on the sources that the state was using. Mrs. Lombardi requested that when Southington' s RFP is released that sources for the external data that is used will be included along the year. Mr. Connellan agreed that it would be specified in the RFP that vendors identify their sources for their data. Mrs. Clark requested that the public be made aware that this enrollment study is a lengthy process that will not be decided overnight or happen by the end of this school year. Mr. Connellan added that he already has been meeting with PTOs and would put together a summary of his discussions with the PTOs including the timelines. This project would not be completed any sooner than the fall of 2019. Mr. Connellan stated that the end product would be valuable in guiding future discussions that will have a long-term and significant impact on the community. Mrs. Queen requested that Mr. Connellan put his summary on the home page of the Southington Public Schools website including the dates he meets with the PTOs.
February 27, 2017
Town Council Meeting Minutes
Mr. Pocock spoke
“I promised the parents at Kelley, Flanders & Derynoski
Schools that those needed to be addressed. We have not finished our
school projects the way they should be. Kelley and Flanders are a
mess. I don't believe it something that we should turn around and
ignore. They need to be done.
The Board of Education is working diligently to determine the
needs.
We need to prioritize that.”
October 26, 2017 (9 months later)
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
The Board members discussed under "Facilities, Part A", adding a fourth item "to begin developing a model for redistricting." Mr. Connellan stated that in March, Milone and McBroom would come back to the Board with the results of Phase II and explain what they see as the use of the buildings and what they would recommend for proposed redistricting. He explained that last year the General Assembly passed a law for universal preschool in all communities for ages three and four. Mr. Derynoski stated that with the housing development in town and enrollment, it would be a good time to look at the distribution of children and that as a goal the superintendent and his staff should get a jumpstart in putting together a plan for future redistricting. Mr. Connellan will add #4 to his 2017-2018 Facilities goals and ask Milone and Mc Broom if they can accelerate the Phase II study.
April 30, 2020
MINUTES OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FACILITIES AD-HOC COMMITTEE MEETING
DATE: April 30, 2020
PLACE: MEETING WAS HELD VIRTUALLY VIA “GOOGLE MEET”
MEMBERS PRESENT: Colleen Clark, Chairperson, Robert Brown, James Chrzanowski, Zaya Oshana
OBSERVER: Terri Carmody-Ex-Officio
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT: Timothy Connellan, Superintendent of Schools, Steve Madancy, Assistant
Superintendent, Peter Romano, Director of Operations, Sherri DiNello, Director of
Business and Finance
Colleen Clark, Chairperson of the Ad-Hoc Committee called the meeting to order at 4:46 p.m.
The committee discussed steps and phases of going forward with the Elementary School Project. Mr. Connellan presented documents to help guide the committee in the discussion of this project. One was a report completed by Milone and MacBroom and presented to the Board of Education in June 2019. The Board of Education alternatives document is in this report. The second document was created by the Colliers Group, a consulting group with whom previous discussions were held. The Elementary School Project Phases is an outline of steps and phases that is typical of a school construction project. The timeline will need to be
adjusted. The phases include:
Phase I – Benchmarking of Existing Conditions and Enrollment (March – June 2020)
➢ Perform a Facilities Conditions Assessment of the existing elementary schools
➢ Update background enrollment projects (Milone and MacBroom may have been conducting such activities)
➢ Conduct capacity and utilization studies of the existing schools to determine current or future space deficiencies
➢ Development of Master Schedule for proposed early phase planning through referendum and
submission of an assumed grant application to the state
Phase 2 – Option Development (July – November 2020)
➢ Develop redistricting options based on the existing facilities and site compared to the proposed options and compare to the 2016 state design guidelines (SCG-2500)
➢ Prepare space standard calculations for each facility proposed in the options utilizing the projected 8- year high enrollment for such option
➢ Develop Total Project Budget ranges for each option based on assumed building area (space standard) and area of existing property to be developed
➢ Perform preliminary site assessments (wetlands, endangered species, zoning, etc.) for each proposed site to assess potential risks
➢ Southington Board of Education decision on the preferred option(s) to move forward to referendum
Phase 3 – Refinement of Preferred Option(s) (December 2020-March 2021)
➢ Perform due diligence
o Perform due diligence activities
o Perform preliminary geotechnical investigations for proposed new structures or additions
o Perform hazardous materials review of the existing building proper
o Prepare Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
o Wetlands Assessment
➢ Develop educational specification for preferred option(s)
➢ Develop detailed Total Project Budget
➢ Develop detailed Project Schedule
➢ Develop messaging of the preferred option(s)
➢ Meet with OSCG&R to review Board of Education approved program
Phase 4 – Marketing of Project (April – September 2021)
➢ Actively meet with Town Constituents to “sell the program/project”
➢ Funding endorsements by governing town bodies
➢ Final approval of educational specification (if not completed in Phase 3)
Discussion was held on the following:
Enrollment projections
Utilization of buildings
Recommendation- if seven elementary schools, would need an additional 100 seat capacity
Square footage of buildings
Age of Buildings
Information Needed
Cost to renovate – including swing space
Cost to build new – including swing space if appropriate
Reimbursement for new construction
State requirements for area – available space
Scenarios for redistricting
➢ The current elementary families may not have students in the new or renovated schools
Understanding of utilization and what that means in real time considerations
Personnel costs – potential cost savings of school consolidation
The committee agreed to have Mr. Connellan contact the Colliers Project Leaders to inquire about the possibility of a virtual meeting / presentation for the committee at a future date regarding the type of consulting work that they can contribute to this effort. Debi will poll the board for available dates for Colliers to host this virtual meeting / presentation.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:54 p.m.
May 18, 2020
Elementary School Facilities Committee Meeting
Via Google Meets
Members present: Colleen Clark (Chair), James Chrzanowski, Zaya Oshana, Bob Brown, Terri Carmody
(ex officio)
Administration present: Tim Connellan, Sherri DiNello, Steve Madancy, Pete Romano
Meeting called to order at 4:02 p.m.
Mr. Connellan introduced the members of the Colliers’ Project Group – Marc Skelenka, Chuck
Warrington, and Jeff Gutsfeld and their job responsibilities within their company.
Mr. Skelelnka introduced his company and explained that they are Owner Project Managers (OPM) with 130 employees and 25 years in the market. He explained the difference between an Owner Project Manager (who represents the owner throughout the entire building process) and a Construction Manager (who manages the building process).
Mr. Warrington and Mr. Gutsfeld continued the discussion with examples of how the OPM facilitates the process with the town with issues such as: new versus renovate to new, cost versus debt service, code issues, swing space if needed, roles of BOE/Town/ administration/ building committee, public hearings, budget development, construction, and working with the State. They gave examples of current work with a school district in Connecticut.
Mr. Connellan gave an overview of renovations thus far in the district.
Questions were asked regarding costs to build new versus renovate to new, utilization of space,
reimbursement by the State, and the possible impact of Covid-19 on building design.
Next steps: Mr. Connellan will work with the Colliers team to develop a list of specific items or data points that would be most beneficial for the Committee and identify the related costs to obtain or create that information. The information will be shared with the Committee and a subsequent meeting will be scheduled for discussion.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
November 30, 2020
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FACILITIES COMMITTEE MEETING
(Zoom / Teleconference Meeting)
******************************************************************************
Board Members Present: Mrs. Colleen Clark, Chairperson; Mr. James Chrzanowski, Mr. Bob
Brown, Mr. Zaya Oshana, and Mrs. Terri Carmody
Administrators Present: Mr. Timothy Connellan, Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Steven
Madancy, Assistant Superintendent; Mrs. Sherri DiNello, Director of Business & Finance; and
Mr. Peter Romano, Director of Operations
Others Present: Collier and Associates - Mr. Chuck Warrington and Mr. John Koplas
Mrs. Clark, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Warrington from Collier & Associates opened the meeting with a review of the current
situations at Kelley, Flanders, and Derynoski Elementary Schools. He then shared GIS
(Geographic Information System) mapping of the sites with potential locations for new schools
on the sites. The discussion continued about square feet required per student, what expenses the state would and would not reimburse the Town for, soft costs versus construction costs,
reimbursement rates for renovation versus new construction, and current and projected
enrollment.
The committee agreed that more discussion was needed to determine the next steps required in
the process.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
January 14, 2021
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
Mr. Connellan addressed the projected enrollment from the Milone & MacBroom report of June 6, 2019 with historical enrollment data, which will need to be updated to move forward with discussions about the elementary facilities.
Mr. Baczewski questioned the Milone & MacBroom projected enrollment numbers and to get a better gauge on the numbers, how they compared with the actual enrollment for the 2020-2021 school year. Mr. Connellan will provide that information; however, the mitigating factor would be the number of students who were remote learning.
April 27, 2021
Board of Education Elementary Facilities Committee
Meeting Minutes
Call to Order: 4:00 p.m.
Members Present: Colleen Clark, Committee Chairperson, Zaya Oshana,
Robert Brown, Terri Carmody, Board Chairperson
Administration Present: Timothy Connellan, Superintendent, Steven
Madancy, Assistant Superintendent, Sherri DiNello, Director of Business
and Finance
The Committee Chairperson noted that no feedback, input, or questions have been received from other Board of Education members. The Collier presentation was discussed in depth, with special regard for the possible options and costs outlined. In addition, the Committee discussed the need for additional dialogue and input, citing specifically the possibility of a
presentation to the Town Council.
The location of Karen Smith Academy was discussed and the possibility of developing education specifications that could be used for an analysis of the project costs should the eventual decision involve moving KSA.
Redistricting will be a necessary component of any elementary project and the district will plan to reengage SLR, formerly Milone and MacBroom.
Tasks:
The Superintendent will discuss with the Town Manager regarding
a presentation at a Town Council meeting.
The administration will continue to work with Colliers regarding
additional information needed.
May 13, 2021
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Report ~ April 27, 2021
Mrs. Clark reported that the committee discussed the Collier presentation and that there were no questions received from other Board of Education members. The committee decided that they needed additional input and dialogue and discussed a presentation before theTown Council. The location of the Karen Smith Academy was discussed along with the possibility of developing education specifications for analysis and project costs. The superintendent will discuss with the Town Manager about a presentation at a Town Council meeting and the administration will continue to work with Colliers regarding additional information. The next virtual committee meeting will be Tuesday, May 18 at 4:00p.m.
May 18, 2021
Board of Education Elementary Facilities Committee
Call to Order: 4:05 p.m.
Members Present: Colleen Clark, Committee Chairperson, Zaya Oshana,
Robert Brown, Terri Carmody, Board Chairperson
Administration Present: Timothy Connellan, Superintendent, Steven
Madancy, Assistant Superintendent, Sherri DiNello, Director of Business
and Finance, Peter Romano, Director of Operations
The Committee discussed input from the Administration’s meeting with Colliers which included the Town Manager. During the Colliers meeting there was a discussion of an additional scenario using the Derynoski Elementary School site. It was agreed that information would be developed and included in the Colliers material to address that possibility. Additional discussion ensued regarding work that would be needed to accommodate the Karen Smith Academy whether on the current site or on a different site. The overall structure of the Flanders Elementary School
property was discussed, noting that it is approximately 18 acres and of course is located on the east side of town along with Hatton Elementary and Thalberg Elementary schools. The Committee did note that any form of a project would by necessity account for both educational and geographic factors, but that the financial impact is of critical importance. One additional note is that the testing required by the EPA for the middle schools was supposed to be for only five years but has been extended.
There is a similar concern regarding ongoing costs for required testing for any renovation.
The discussion/presentation with the Town Council will occur on Monday May 24th. The administration will continue to work with Colliers
regarding additional information needed.
Meeting adjourned 4:45 p.m.
May 24, 2021
Presentation to Town Council
Link:
2021 Presentation to Town Council
BOE FACILITIES COMMITTEE PRESENTATION
Colleen Clarke, Chair of the Elementary School Facility Committee, noted Messiers Connellan,
Medancy, Brown, and Sharnowsky were present, as well. Mr. Oshana, a member of the committee, was not present. Ms. Carmody is also present. And, two representatives from Collier and Associates were also present.
We are here to present the work of our committee thus far in order to facilitate communication
and transparency between the BOE and the Town Council. We have three elementary schools: Kelley, Flanders and Derynoski, which have not yet been renovated to 21st Century standards. Our committee has been exploring various scenarios since last year to determine potential solutions to bring our schools up to the standards our community expects and our children deserve.
Tonight, we are going to share the possibilities with you.
Superintendent Tim ConnelIan said this is to the council and the citizens of this community
about the efforts and information that the committee has been working on and submitted. There is a delay because of COVID.
We have eight elementary schools and five have been renovated. The two middle schools were
renovated. We now have three elementary schools that have not been touched. Derynoski was built in 1950 and Kelley and Flanders opened around 1967.
Again, this is all informational. There are 12 buildings we've taken into account that have
students in them. We are going to talk about the three elementary schools in particular.
(Hard copy of presentation slides attached hereto.) Attachment #3
Steve Madancy, assuming the role of Superintendent on July 1st. Looking forward to working
with all of you in the not-too-distant future. I am going to speak to what currently exits to speak to the need of the aging facilities we are talking about. Then I'll introduce the Collier representatives to provide more insight. What you hear tonight is where we are at this point in terms of the exploratory phase of this conversation/discussion that will change over time as we work with the state and get their feedback about what scenarios they favor and what lends itself to the best sense for the community in terms of the instructional needs of our students but also the financial commitment to the town.
Slides:
1. Outdated Entrances
2. Classrooms (not air conditioned, outdated furniture, etc.)
3. Exterior Envelope
4. Gym with VCT flooring
5. Media Centers (outdated and too small)
6. Outdated Electrical Equipment
7. Electrical heat throughout
8. Classroom - lacking sufficient storage
9. Classroom - outdated
10. Hallways with copiers
11. Restrooms outdated
12. Mechanicals - end of useful life
13. Outdated, inefficient boilers
Mr. Chuck Warrington from Colliers & Associates spoke about the following slides:
14. State of Connecticut Guidelines for Planning Projects
15. Space Standard Calculations
16. Renovation Status
17. Draft Scenarios
18. Assumptions for Range of Budgets
19. Scenario 1- Renovate Derynoski, Flanders & Kelley
20. Scenario 2 - Renovate Derynoski, Replace with new Kelley and abandon Flanders
21. Scenario 3 -Abandon Derynoski, Replace Flanders and Kelley with new
22. Scenario 4-Replace Derynoski and Kelley with new and abandon Flanders
23. Scenarios Summary
Questions, suggestions and comments by Councilman Chaplinsky and Dziedzic.
May 27, 2021
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Report ~ May 18, 2021
Mrs. Clark reported that the committee discussed input received from a meeting with Colliers that included the Town Manager, Mark Sciota. Also discussed was an additional scenario using the Derynoski Elementary School site with information to be developed. The committee discussed the work that needed to be done to accommodate the Karen Smith Academy on the current site or on a different site. Mrs. Clark reported that Collier gave a presentation to theTown Council on Monday, May 24, 2021 presenting the facts and to begin the discussion on the elementary facilities. Mr. Connellan thought the presentation was well received and presented as indicated by responses by Town Councilors Ms. Triano and Mr. DelSanto. He stated that Mr. Chuck Warrington from The presentation will be sent in PDF form to the Town Council, Board of Finance, and Planning & Zoning members for the opportunity to ask questions. Mrs. Clark stated that the day after the presentation she sent a follow-up email to the Town Council to start the conversation. She had the impression that Town Councilors had heard gossip, rumors and wanted to make sure that they had the actual facts. As a point of clarification, Mr. Connellan stated that when the Collier people gave a presentation to the Board of Education at a Special Board Meeting in March, emails were sent to the entire Town Council and Board of Finance members inviting them to participate and the PDF presentation was forwarded to those elected officials at the same time. Monday night was not the first time that the elected officials received the presentation. He stated that this was a very important decision for the entire community just like what was done with the middle school renovations.
June 23, 2021
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
The Committee discussed scenarios and planning with the town's Economic Development Director, Mr. Louis Perillo. Consideration must be made for the mixed zoning currently existing on the Derynoski site. Additionally, it was recommended that the committee consider a habitat study. Finally, it was recommended that the committee consider unintended consequences relative to enrollment and future use of buildings or sites depending on the scenario adopted.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the recent Town Council presentation and timelines were revisited along with discussion about the upcoming state meeting with OSCG&R.
Lastly, discussion ensured about Pre-Referendum Summer Work related to the elementary facilities project and the importance of having certain information to further inform scenarios in play prior to the OSCG&R meeting in August. The scope of the work, along with funding sources will be brought to you as an agenda item later this evening.
(Meeting 70 minutes in length)
June 24, 2021
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Report June 22, 2021 Meeting
Mrs. Clark reported that the committee Economic Development Director, Mr. Louis Perillo, to see what the economic impact would be to the town depending upon the school discussed. The committee was still in the beginning stages of dialog and Mr. Perillo shared some very interesting points for further discussions. A handout was distributed to the Board regarding Pre-Referendum Summer Work related to the scope of the work and funding sources. Mrs. Clark noted a change in the schedule estimate for preliminary geo-technical borings, which was reduced. Mr. Madancy clarified that the overall price projected was correct and discussed timelines for the Board of Education and town.
October 28, 2021
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
Move to Approve the Superintendent’s Goals for the 2021 - 2022 school year.
MOTION: by Mr. Oshana, seconded by Mrs. Clark:
Mr. Derynoski questioned Goal #3 “The Superintendent ofSchools, in collaboration with the administration, Board of Education, town officials, and community members will work to improve district facilities including elementary buildings, athletic facilities, and the Karen Smith Academy” which he thought may not happen and was over extending, especially Goal #3.c, Develop educational specifications and review academic programming anticipating bringing Karen Smith Academy forward for consideration in the November 2022 referendum. Mr. Derynoski stated that there were elementary schools that needed work for many years before the Karen Smith Academy. He thought it should be a Board of Education goal to prioritize what steps that are needed to bring to the town. He thought to do them all at one time was not going to happen. Mr. Madancy stated that, per policy, there would be a mid-year discussion of these goals and if there were goals that were not progressing mid-year, they could re-visit that goal and move to 2023. He included the Karen Smith Academy, adjacent to DES, in the entire Derynoski School project for the potential of what would happen to the current Derynoski Elementary School vs. building a new school behind it and what the site plan would look like for the home of the Karen Smith Academy. He has had this conversation with theTown Manager because it involves the scope of the Derynoski project. Mr. Madancy explained that another goal of his was to collaborate with town officials and that he and Mr. Mark Sciota, Town Manager, addressed both attending Town Council and Board of Education meetings to foster partnership.
November 18, 2021
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
4. Elementary Facilities Project Update:
Mr. Madancy stated that now with a newly elected Board and the assignment of committees, the Elementary Facilities Project Committee could reconvene again. There was a setback when the state official, who oversaw the Office of Construction, resigned due to conflict with Governor Lamont. Two weeks prior to resigning, the state official was supposed to come to Southington to sign-off on the remaining three facilities that needed to be renovated-to-new or built as new construction. This has set the project timeline back to get a commitment from the state in order to move forward.
January 23, 2022
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
b. Elementary Facilities Project Update
Mr. Madancy stated that he and Mr. Mark Sciota, Town Manager, have been attending as a partnership between the Town and Board of Education to exchange information. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation is being posted on social media. They gave a lengthy update on the pre-referendum work for the Elementary Facilities Project explaining the problems and big shake-up at the state level that had delayed the Elementary Facilities Projects resulting in Southington losing three months of planning time that now would be rushed in order to meet deadlines to bring the project to referendum. They and other officials met with the state office of School Construction Grants (SCG) on Monday, January 20, 2022 and discussed new state requirements and other options moving forward.
Mr. Madancy explained what still needed to be completed for the Elementary Facilities Projects pre-referendum work for the community to be fully informed before bringing it to referendum in 2023. Mr. Madancy stated that the Board would need to take a consensus at their next meeting on January 27 because they adopted a Capital Improvement Plan that had those projects in different years, and it would need to be amended to be swapped around.
April 25, 2022
Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting
(No minutes, just an agenda found)
1.Call to Order
2.Representatives from Collier’s Group present to reconstitute timelines and actions associated with community engagement leading up to a November, 2023 referendum
3.Future meetings for Committee discussed/set
4.Meeting Adjourns
May 12, 2022
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting April 25, 2022
Mr. Madancy reported that this project and referendum was postponed due to the turmoil at the state level. The committee met with representatives from the Colliers Group and discussed revised timelines and actions needed for pre-referendum work for the November 2023 Referendum. The recently completed updated enrollment study will be presented to the Board at the May 26 Board of Education meeting. The committee discussed the transitions occurring at the state level and decided to hold off further discussion with the state until permanent leadership was in place in the State Office of School Construction. The next Elementary Facilities Committee meeting will be held on June 1, 2022, at 3:00pm via Zoom. Mrs. Carmody was pleased to have the enrollment data updated due to volatility in enrollment since the pandemic.
May 24, 2022
Meeting of the Chairs, Revised Special Meeting Minutes
This Thursday’s BOE meeting has budget reallocation and adoption as top items, second behind that is the updated enrollment study completed this past March. Projected enrollment of 400+ students over the next several years. The turnover in the housing market in Southington, thebirthratesin2021werethehighest since2006, and new developments in town are all contributing factors to the increase. The Elementary Facilities Committee meets on st June1 to start to discuss facility scenarios. In September they would like to have a larger community conversation about potential facility scenarios. The goal in pushing this to a 2023 referendum was to give the community time to engage. In next year’s reallocation plan there is a reduction in staff that will be part of the conversation onThursday evening. That is a reduction that we can handle.
June 8, 2022
Elementary Facilities Committee Agenda
(No minutes, not sure a meeting happened)
1.Call to Order
2.Enrollment Study Recap
3.Redistricting and Facility Scenarios
4.Timelines
5.Meeting Adjourns
June 9, 2022
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
Elementary Facilities Project: Mr. Madancy explained that the Elementary Facilities Project was shifted to a referendum in November 2023. The work during the summer would be to complete the pre-referendum work to begin to engage the community in conversations around the different scenarios being considered. He will give the Board an update in September.
August 11, 2022
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting June 8, 2022
Mr. Madancy reported that the committee met with Mr. Warrington andMr. Koplas from Colliers, andMr. Gallagher andMr. Zuba fromSLAM. Discussed was a recap of theEnrollment Study, redistricting, andfacility scenarios along with timelines in order to meet deadlines around Town Council authorization, bonding approval, and the 2023 Town Referendum. Draft scenarios will be shared with the full Board at a future BOE meeting.
October 17, 2022
Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting Agenda
Meeting called to order at 3:05 p.m.
Members Present: Colleen W. Clark, Chair, Zaya Oshana,
Absent: Jasper Williams, Joseph Baczewski
Administration Present: Steven Madancy, Peter Romano
Guests: John Koplas from Colliers, Pat Gallagher and Mike Zuba (SLAM)
SLAM Redistricting Scenario Review:
The Elementary Facilities Committee reviewed the redistricting scenario
presented by SLAM. The next step will be meeting with the state to discuss
costs and arranging for a presentation to the full Board.
Meeting Adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
November 10, 2022
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
c. Elementary Facilities Committee October 17, 2022
Mrs. Clark reported that the committee had met sporadically. At the October meeting they reviewed again the SLAM Redistricting Scenario and student population. Because of changes at the state level, the committee will meet with the state to discuss costs and to arrange for a presentation to the full Board. Mr. Derynoski questioned who was SLAM? Mrs. Clark stated that SLAM was part of Milone & MacBroom, a construction and engineering firm, which recently merged with SLR International Corporation.
Monday, December 12, 2022 – 3:00 p.m.
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting
Minutes
Present: Colleen Clark, Steven Madancy, Peter Romano, Charles Warrington and
John Koplas (Colliers), Mark Sciota, Town Manager
Absent: Joe Baczewski, Zaya Oshana, Jasper Williams
1. Called to Order at 3:00 p.m.
2. Discussion of current market rates and updated quotes on Derynoski. Kelley
and Karen Smith Academy.
3. Meeting Adjourned at 3:45
January 12, 2023
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting December 12, 2022
Mr. Madancy reported that the committee met in December, after the November Referendum, and discussed the Athletic Facilities upgrades andTitleIX mandates that was voted down by the community. They also discussed the initial cost projections for the Elementary Facilities projects and current market rates, escalation of project costs and updated quotes for Derynoski and Kelley Elementary Schools and the Karen Smith Academy. He addressed debt service, and that the committee would be meeting with the state on February 14 with some scenarios to continue the conversation and would come back to the Board with new information.
December 12, 2022
Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting Agenda
(no minutes available)
1.Call to Order
2.Discussion of current market rates and updated quotes
3.Meeting Adjourn
January 12, 2023
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Elementary Facilities Committee Meeting December 12, 2022
Mr. Madancy reported that the committee met in December, after the November Referendum, and discussed the Athletic Facilities upgrades and Title IX mandates that was voted down by the community. They also discussed the initial cost projections for the Elementary Facilities projects and current market rates, escalation of project costs and updated quotes for Derynoski and Kelley Elementary Schools and the Karen Smith Academy. He addressed debt service, and that the committee would be meeting with the state on February 14 with some scenarios to continue the conversation and would come back to the Board with new information.
February 23, 2023
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
Elementary Facilities Review
Mr. Madancy explained that the Elementary Facilities Review was the first time to see this information and Projected Enrollment Study, which is half of the equation with the other half building usage and occupancy. This information helps the Board to make recommendations to the Town Board of Finance and Town Council for future building construction projects and the November 2023 Referendum. This information will be shared at a future parent forum. He introduced Mr. Patrick Gallagher, Lead Planner, from SLAM who gave a PowerPoint Presentation (Attachment #1) on various planning scenarios. Mr. Gallagher discussed at length the purpose of Scenario Planning, which will help define what those projects would be and the series of metrics to help understand the pros and cons of different scenarios and changes to the middle school feeder pattern, and the impact of redistricting. He discussed capacity for each building and room usage based on classroom size policy. His presentation used three color-coded blocks to identify scenarios as maintaining the status quo, building new, or renovate-to-new, and closing a facility based on assumptions and looking at five years out to 2026-2027 from the initial enrollment projections. He discussed in detail the various scenarios that included conceptual boundaries, pocket redistricting, feasibility, and middle school feeder patterns:
Status Quo No Change
Scenario A: Maintaining and alignment of the eight (8) elementary schools with three building projects Derynoski, Flanders and Kelley.
Scenario B Seven (7) elementary schools (closing Flanders) with two (2) building projects Kelley and Derynoski.
Scenario C Seven (7) elementary schools (closing Flanders) with two (2) building projects Derynoski and making Kelley larger.
Scenario D Severn (7) Elementary Schools (Close Flanders), Smaller Derynoski with South End Addition with three (3) building projects Kelley, Derynoski, and South End.
Mr. Gallagher provided a matrix comparing the five scenarios with scenario description and objectives. Mr. Baczewski questioned how the decision was made on what school to close. Mr. Madancy replied in detail on the pre-referendum engineering-type of work of the sites that was done to come to the conclusions. Based on conversations with the state and the Capital Plan with one construction project, the recommendation would be for Kelley Elementary School. He noted that there would be public hearings with Planning & Zoning, Board of Finance, and Town Council.
Mr. Carson emphasized that this was a Feasibility Study and decisions have not been made yet. He thought that it needed to be made clear that a lot is determined on conversations at the state level based on strategy, reimbursement rates, and construction ideology to make the best decision for the school district and community. Mr. Madancy pointed out that the state indicated it was up to the community to decide on new construction or renovate-to-new. He addressed the next important piece was to invite Mr. Gallagher back to a Community Forum and explain how the different scenarios were determined. Mr. Madancy noted that the district enrollment fluctuates and was not decreasing. Mr. Derynoski stated that the Board needed to focus on the timing with the state, which was critical, the referendum, increased enrollment with new home developments being built and to do initial planning for redistricting because they currently have issues resulting in increased transportation costs.
February 27, 2023
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
1.Meeting called to order at 4:00pm. Superintendent discussed vision for
committee which includes cross collaboration across elected and town officials, prioritizing district facilities projects that would impact town’s debt service. Additionally, conversations relative to elementary facilities have been limited to those on the Elementary Facilities Committee to date which has resulted in limited townwide and community awareness and understanding of timelines and rationale of any major construction projects to this point. BOE
representation from that committee is now merged on to this committee and that committee has been discharged of its exclusive duties. BOE Chair also highlighted importance of community involvement, hence intention to invite 3 community representatives to committee.
2. Committee discussed FY 24 capital projects for BOE and Town and Nov 23 referendum. Timelines associated with KES school construction project were discussed and agreed on. Times and locations TBD.
(Meeting 35 minutes)
March 23, 2023
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. District-wideFacilities Committee Meeting February 27, 2023
Mr. Madancy reported that along with the Elementary Facilities Project the committee also discussed FCapital Plan Projects. The committee recommends including theTown Board of Finance and Town Council in partnership on all these projects because the projects include debt service that impact operating budgets. He addressed timelines and processes if the projects were to go to Referendum. The next District-WideFacilities Committee meeting has not been scheduled. Mr. Carson questioned if there was feedback and guidance from the state regarding Renovate-to-New versus New Construction. Mr. Madancy stated that he would address that later on the agenda.
New Business:
Elementary Facilities Report:
Mr. Madancy reported that district officials met with the state on February 14, 2023 after last year putting the projects on hold due to uncertainty at the state level with personnel changes. He explained that there are ongoing changes of personnel at the state level and how uncertainty at the state level effected other school districts that moved forward with school construction last year. The person that they recently met at the state Department of Administrative Services told them that the state would not advise the district to Renovate-to-New or build New and that the decision was up to the town after costing out scenarios and other considerations. However, the person that they met with resigned shortly after that meeting, which leave still uncertainty on how to proceed and how much they would receive from the state. The current challenge was to meet the June 30 deadline to submit an application to the state to be considered for a December approval to be placed on the priority list. He noted that the challenge with the costing out of the different scenarios was that there was no scenario where all three of the school projects were going to be done at one time and whether the project would be Renovate-to-New or New Construction. Mr. Madancy noted that Colliers was still working on forecasting out what the cost of the various scenarios would be if one scenario was to be adopted. He addressed debt service, state grant reimbursement, pre-referendum work, uncertainty at the state level, the three elementary schools in need of work, outdated electrical loads, and equitable experiences. Mr. Carson questioned if the state reimbursed for demolition costs when there was new construction. Mr. Baczewski proposed a rendition of temporarily closing Flanders, demolition of Flanders and rebuilding new on the site. He stated that he preferred neighborhood schools. Mr. Carson stated that he attended a Planning & Zoning meeting where they approved the apartment complex on West Street with 255 units and the expectation was that the project would only generate 13 additional students into the school district. One of his concerns was for affordable housing in town and the West Street project was approved with a 10% density of affordable housing.
April 4, 2023
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
2. Follow-up to recent Community Forum and BOE Meeting
a. The committee discussed recent attendance at the Community Forum where SLAM presented the various scenarios associated with elementary construction projects. There were about 20 parents present at this forum. Unfortunately, something occurred with the video
equipment and although the forum was streamed and recorded, no sound was captured. In order to ensure information was shared with the larger community the superintendent sent out the 2 prior presentations done for the Board on Enrollment and Facilities and has also built out the homepage of the website with all associated Elementary Project Information.
3. Consideration and discussion of timelines for grant application
submission and referendum
a. The committee discussed the upcoming deadline for the grant
submission and the tight timelines associated with an application
submission given that the Board has yet to endorse any specific
scenario given the following:
i. Enrollment projections not supporting closing of a school.
ii. Current cost of new construction is 495 sq. ft. which will have a major impact on town debt service which has already been a challenge to navigate relative to BOE and Town Operating
budgets during the current fiscal year.
iii. Continued uncertainty at the state level with yet another turnover in OSCGR leadership.
iv. Concern over closing a neighborhood school and/or building larger elementary schools.
With the committee reaching consensus to hold off on a June 2023 grant application for school construction, discussion continued relative to timing and referendum dates of November 2023, consideration of a special referendum for May 2024, with a June 2024 application submission, or the need to wait until 2025 given the town’s commitment to paving referendums
every 4 years and not wanting to combine requests for funding to the community.
4. Discussion of Master Districtwide Facilities Plan
a. The committee agreed that although future construction is imminent
and needed, prioritizing all projects including:
School Construction
i. Hardening of entry ways
ii. Ongoing roof replacements
iii. Athletic facilities projects
iv. Various paving projects
v. Installation of upgraded HVAC in all elementary schools.
A comprehensive DW Master facilities plan that effectively priorities
and costs out projects with inflation accounted for is needed to better
inform the community of needs and larger scope of work needed
leading up to referendums.
(Meeting 70 minutes)
June 7, 2023
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
Discussion of potential Nov 23 referendum items limited to high priority
athletic facility items and bonding /cash funding versus current capital plan
timelines.
Recommendation of committee was to bring revised timeline below to the
next Committee of the Chairs for further discussion across elected Boards.
Proposal for discussion includes:
• Cash funding lights for softball field with current funds from re-
allocation to complete work in summer/fall 2023
o $350,000
• Tennis courts 2024 with bonding. Total project cost, but with
engineering costs removed
o $950,000
• Track 2025 with bonding.
o $706,000
• Bleachers/Press box 2026 with bonding.
o $822,300
Consideration for cash funding in bleachers 2025. Timing makes most sense
given planned turf replacement for 2025.
The bonding process above allows project completion without interfering
with current projected referendums of road paving in 2024 and elementary
schools in 2025.
3. Meeting Adjourned 4:45pm
(Meeting 45 minutes, nothing discussed on Elementary Schools)
August 17, 2023
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting June 7, 2023
Mr. Madancy reported that the committee met and discussed the potential high priority November referendum items for the SHS Athletic Facility and bonding/cash funding versus current Capital Plan timelines. The recommendation was to bring the revised timelines to the next Committee of the Chairs meeting for further discussion. The proposals for discussion included lights for the softball field (with current funds from reallocation in 2023), tennis courts 2024 with bonding), track (2025 with bonding), and bleachers/press box (2026 with bonding or 2025 with cash funding).
December 18, 2023
Districtwide Facilities Committee Minutes
Introduction of members/guests from SLAM
3. Review of recent/past work to date with SLAM
a. SLAM presented slides (attached) summarizing and recapping
recent facilities study work done relative to the elementary
schools and enrollment.
4. Overview of Master Facilities Plan process.
a. Slides included.
5. Discuss the timeline and items to be included within the plan.
a. Committee agreed that more time in person was needed. SPS
administration would seek available dates from SLAM and
schedule time to discuss priorities of projects as well as
associated costs.
6. Townwide communication re: Committee meetings and outcomes
a. Discussed the importance of members of the committee
attending the meetings to share with members of their elected
Boards as meetings occurred, as they would eventually be
viewing and providing feedback on a master facilities plan.
(Meeting 68 minutes- no attachment included in minutes)
New Plan created by Colliers
Link:
February 21, 2024
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
Consensus on Master Planning Considerations & Parameters.
The meeting revolved around planning parameters for a master plan and
considerations for school construction projects. Participants discussed aligning
capacity with enrollment, balancing attendance zones, maximizing grant funds,
improving facility operations, eliminating satellite areas in schools, and better
aligning elementary and middle school attendance zones. There was also
discussion about the importance of cost-effective solutions and whether to
maintain neighborhood schools or consolidate into larger ones. The committee
emphasized the need for data analysis and cost evaluation before making any
decisions. While there was mention of budgeted renovations, there were doubts
about support for building three new schools. Suggestions were made to focus
on two schools that meet the needs of the study, with the possibility of future
expansion if necessary.
3. Consensus on project timeline and process (June 2025)
Paul Chaplinsky suggested initially focusing on building two schools and
considering building three schools if it is more cost-effective. Steven Madancy
emphasized the need for a decision to be made by spring to meet deadlines for
public hearings, bonding authorization, and grant applications. Pat Gallagher
discussed different scenarios and their costs, emphasizing the importance of
balancing efficiency and utilization. Chuck Warrington highlighted the
importance of comparing maintenance costs to inform future decisions.
Colleen Clark raised questions about neighborhood schools, utilization,
redistricting, and underbuilding. Paul Chaplinsky raised concerns about low
utilization rates and suggested considering options for efficiency. Zaya Oshana
expressed opposition to the idea of building mega schools.
(Meeting 1 hour)
March 27, 2024
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
1. Call to Order
2. Review and discussion of various Scenarios as presented by Colliers
3. Discussion of Future Cost Avoidance Proposal and associated costs
4. Discussion of timelines and process-associated scenarios
5. Meeting Adjourns
(No meeting minutes actually listed, just the agenda- so not sure a meeting actually happened)
May 16, 2024
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
1. Call to Order at
2. Review and discussion of draft ed specs and budget projections for Derynoski Elementary
School
3. Review and discussion of draft ed specs and budget projections for Kelley Elementary School
4. Discussion of timelines
5. Meeting Adjourns
(No meeting minutes, so do not long how the meeting went or what was actually discussed)
January 14, 2025 ( 8 months from last meeting and no updates about these meetings at BOE meetings)
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
1.Debt Service Review
Jennifer Mellitt presented an updated debt service analysis confirming that, given the policy limits and associated debt service costs, it is not feasible to complete the KES and DES projects simultaneously. Given this, Jen presented a revised timeline (Attached) highlighting when the DES project could be done and keeping the town within the debt service policy limit.
2. KES / South End Scenario Review
Charles Warrington presented an updated scenario that still involves the KES project going forward to application submission in June 2025 and referendum 2025. The scenario includes cost estimates and factoring in the escalation costs for doing DES at a later date.
The updated scenario has KES's new construction and South End build-out occurring first, allowing for redistricting and school consolidation, coupled with a future DES/KSA project.
Charles also reviewed the project schedule and associated timelines we would need to be conscious of to keep the project on track with associated timelines.
3. Committee Discussion
While the information provides the committee with an appropriate rationale to shift the recommendation from the fall now that the debt service analysis confirms this would need to occur, the committee could not reach a consensus or make any recommendations given the lack of quorum. The committee agreed that this presents a couple of challenges:
This committee can only recommend; it is ultimately up to the entire Board. There is only one meeting currently scheduled in February (February 27th). This places us in a very tight timeframe compared to all the other actions that will need to occur, leading to application submission by June 30th to present a recommendation to the full Board, we must schedule
another DW Facilities Committee meeting soon and then a special Board meeting to review and discuss the recommended scenario.
(Meeting 1 hour)
January 23, 2025 (1 year and 5 months since last BOE update)
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
b.Districtwide Facilities Meeting - January 14, 2025
Mr. Madancy spoke about last spring when they investigated the construction of a new Derynoski Elementary and a new Kelly Elementary School simultaneously in the hopes it would save money on escalation costs. After doing a debt service analysis it was clear the allotted 9.5% debt service limit would be exceeded if both schools were done at the same time.Mr. Madancy thanked Mrs. Mellitt for all her hard work on the project.Mrs. Mellitt concluded we could do Kelley Elementary School in 2025 along with a South End build-out.The updated scenario has new construction and South End build-out first, allowing for redistricting and school consolidation, coupled with a future Derynoski. Mr. Madancy then spoke about the timeline and indicated a special meeting may need to be held to share the information with the Board but also allow for some public engagement and comment.There is a June 30 grant application deadline. A Districtwide Facilities Meeting will be held in the near future so a quorum can be held.The recommendation will then be brought to the Board for deliberation and possible action. Mr. Carson asked for clarification on the 9.5% debt service analysis. Mr. Madancy will get back to Mr. Carson with the date the limitation was made.Mrs. Clark explained the 9.5% has to do with the Towns bond rating; they did not want to impact the rating by changing the policy. Mr. Whitehead asked to clarify what the special meeting would be held to decide. Mr. Madancy replied, it would be for the approval of the school construction projects.The decision on redistricting could happen on a later date. Mr. Madancy will provide the committee’s recommendation once they meet.
February 20, 2025
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
Review and Discussion of Scenarios Against Debt Service. There was recap that in the
previous meeting, the debt service models run showed that doing two building projects
simultaneously would put the town over its debt service policy limit of 9.5%.
3. KES / South End Scenario Review
Colliers shared a side-by-side comparison of costs associated with renovate to new, and
new construction. (Slide attached to these meeting minutes)
It was shared that costs as presented do not include bonding and financing costs. The
question was posed as to who pays for those costs. The consultant shared that the town
pays for those costs as they are ineligible cost for reimbursement by the state.
Need clarification on whether portables are eligible for reimbursement from the state.
Question on how long renovate to new building would be expected to perform or last.
Answer, by statute the district would not be able to pursue any further projects related to
a renovate to new building for at least 20 years.
Pros and Cons of renovate to new vs. new construction were reviewed and discussed.
(Also attached)
A consensus was taken by the Board Chair. All 5 committee members in attendance
endorsed the concept of new construction versus renovating to new.
Timelines and tasks to be completed leading up to the grant application submission
deadline were discussed.
(Meeting 65 minutes)
February 24, 2025
Town Council Meeting Minutes
C. Board of Education Districtwide Facilities Committee
Mr. Ricciardone states they met last week. He states it’s been kicked around for many, many years, talk of what they should do for our elementary schools. Most have been updated in the last 20 years with Kelley, Derynoski and Flanders schools still not updated. They all pre-date the 1960’s. The committee had a robust discussion and met with planners and architects. They will be bringing forward a recommendation to the Board of Education at their next meeting. He adds that everyone is in agreement that the Board of Education is the rightful body to make the final recommendation to the town council.
Presentation to Town
April 1, 2025
No minutes available. Link to entire meeting: Meeting 4/1/25
Link to Presentation: Presentation 4/1/25
May 8, 2025
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
a. District-wide Facilities
1. Elementary School Construction:
Mrs. Clark indicated everyone agreed at the workshop that Kelley School needs new construction and South End needs a build-out. The consensus for a timeline would be to hold the referendum in May of 2026.
Mr. Madancy clarified, when the Board approves a scenario, that scenario will be what he will bring to the Town Council. The Board will direct Mr. Madancy to bring the recommendation of the project to the Town Council for May 2026. The purpose is to redistrict the elementary schools but also keep all the schools comparable in size; this is why a new Kelley and a build-out of South End need to happen at the same time.
The Board voted on Phase One in order to move forward with a referendum date in May 2026 knowing things can still change and further discussion will continue to happen for Phase Two.
MOTION made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mr. Williams, "The BOE recommends to the Town Council that we proceed with a construction of a new Kelley School and also the build-out of South End School."
January 27, 2026
Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting Minutes
The Public Facilities Committee met to review the status of the district’s school facilities planning
and to identify remaining decisions and information needed to advance a school construction project to a town referendum. The discussion focused on alignment between the district’s facilities plan, state school construction grant requirements, enrollment projections, and Town Council expectations for bonding authorization.
The committee reviewed prior actions taken in the spring. On April 1, the Board received
presentations on facilities usage, enrollment projections, and a “do nothing” cost baseline for the
elementary schools. Follow-up discussion occurred at an April 24 workshop. On May 8, the Board unanimously approved Phase 1 of the facilities plan, consisting of construction of a new Kelley Elementary School and an expansion of South End Elementary School, with the intent of proceeding toward a referendum.
Referendum timing and legal constraints were discussed. A May referendum was originally
considered; however, blackout period restrictions for town-paid officials and procedural
requirements may necessitate a later date. Early June was discussed as a possible alternative, with associated adjustments to blackout timelines. The committee noted required town processes, including ordinance language, bonding schedules, public hearings, required notices, and Town Clerk certification. The cost of conducting a special referendum was noted as significant and requiring confirmation of budget availability. The superintendent and consultant reviewed the state school construction grant process for Kelley Elementary School. While Phase 2 decisions are not finalized, the state increasingly expects a district-wide facilities plan. Enrollment projections will be included in the application, with Kelley’s planning enrollment currently identified as approximately 494 students, representing the projected eight-year high. For grant purposes, Year 1 of the enrollment window would begin in fall 2026.
The committee discussed the relationship between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Town Council Chairperson indicated a need for clarity on the district’s long-term facilities plan before authorizing bonding and allowing a referendum. The feasibility of advancing Phase 1 without a defined Phase 2 was discussed, particularly as it relates to consolidation and redistricting.
Scenario D2 was identified as the preferred planning direction. Under this scenario, Phase 1 includes a new Kelley Elementary School, the South End expansion, and redistricting. Phase 2 anticipates the closure of Flanders Elementary School, with a longer-term plan to construct a new Derynoski Elementary School on the lower Derynoski field. Site constraints at Flanders and community considerations related to potential school closures were discussed.
Reuse and repurposing of any closed school building was identified as a significant factor in
community acceptance. Potential reuse concepts discussed included affordable housing in
partnership with the Housing Authority and preservation of community spaces such as gymnasium and auditorium facilities for Derynoski Elementary School. The committee noted that Town Council assurances regarding future use of closed school properties could mitigate community concerns. The committee briefly discussed construction logistics, including the possible use of existing buildings as swing space, and identified unresolved questions related to facilities planning for Karen Smith Academy under Scenario D2.
By consensus, the committee agreed to advance Scenario D2 as the recommended planning
direction. It was also agreed to add facilities planning to the February 5 special meeting agenda and to provide Board members access to previously recorded presentations in advance. The
superintendent will coordinate updates to cost estimates, ensure referendum figures are accurate, and work with the district’s finance and bonding representatives to confirm timelines and funding for referendum-related expenses.
February 9, 2026
Town Council Meeting Minutes
C. Board of Education Elementary School Referendum
Mrs. Marino states the Board of Education met last week and reintroduced a possible referendum on the rehabilitation and expansion of South End School, the building of a new, larger Kelley School on the current property and closing Flanders School and redistricting. They plan on making the final decision at their next meeting on February 19. Mr. Chaplinsky states he put this on the agenda this evening as a first read for the council. He states that eventually if the Board of Education makes a decision on a referendum it will then come here and the council will have to create some referendum language and then will have to take it up and disposition it. He adds that he’s had some discussions about the referendum with some Board ofEducation members and the proposal that was made by the committee to the Board of Education is to build a brand new Kelley School on the existing property and build out the lower level of South End School. Those two together would be the first referendum item. He adds that Derynoski is only at 70 percent capacity right now. The proposal also includes closing Flanders School and redistrict utilizing the new larger Kelley School, using the larger South End School with the new buildout, and using the additional capacity at Derynoski School. The second referendum would be building a new smaller Derynoski School on the current property. He states the question that is in front of the Board of Education right now is the Kelley School, South End School and redistricting. He asks what everyone is thinking for Flanders School. He asks the council to think about it. He states if they close Flanders School then the building becomes the town’s building and asks what they would do with the building.
February 19, 2026
Board of Education Meeting Minutes
d. Communications from Public - Agenda Items Only
Kimberly Troccolo, 211 Crest Road, Southington, CT 06489.
Ms. Troccolo expressed her concerns about closing Flanders Elementary School. She feels the
decision to close Flanders in order to gain some funding, redistricting and on paper increasing
building utilization will negatively impact Southington Schools as a whole.
Traci Ianni, 46 Alpine Trail, Plantsville CT 06479.
Ms. Ianni voiced her opposition to closing Flanders Elementary School. A renovation or rebuild of Flanders is an investment worth making for Southington's future; she does not want to see more residential building. She also brought up the concern of enrollment projections. She urges the Board to look beyond money only and reconsider other options.
Shama Green, 67 Memorial Drive, Southington, CT 06489.
Ms. Green expressed feeling unheard and dismissed after reaching out to the Board
Members and receiving no response. She believes the responsibility to inform,
communicate and engage belongs to the elected officials. There is an issue with
process and transparency regarding research for the upcoming referendum.
Residents deserve detailed, current and transparent information.
Sherrie Shover, 60 Tanglewood Drive, Southington, CT 06489.
Ms. Shover asked the Board members not just to weigh the numbers when
considering closing Flanders School but also the impact on the children. Flanders
represents stability, community and a place where children are known as
individuals. Consolidation of schools would push utilization resulting in students in
places that were never designed to be classrooms.
Michele Otero, 580 Andrews Street, Southington, CT 06489.
Ms. Otero spoke in disagreement of closing Flanders Elementary School; she
believes closing any school is wrong as it will result in large class sizes. Residents
buy houses for the school system; Flanders is a family-oriented school. The Board
should think about what is best for the students and closing Flanders will affect
every other school in the district.
Angela Lauretano, 87 Hitchcock Road, Southington, CT 06489.
Ms. Lauretano expressed her support in moving forward with the project for a
proposed referendum in June. This plan will be a benefit for students in Southington
for decades to come. Information has been presented, data has been continuously
updated, many options have been explored; this plan is the least destructive and
most cost effective. Students, teachers, and staff deserve to have a safe, up-to-date
school.
Megan Mele, 545 West Street, Southington, CT 06489
Ms. Mele spoke in support of rebuilding Kelley Elementary School. There is a great
need for facility improvements. Rebuilding Kelley will allow modernizing learning
spaces, improve efficiency, and better align capacity with enrollment. The facility
should be used strategically rather than reactively. Continuing to delay this item will
only increase costs for the future.
Seth Korn, 8 Yorktown Road, Southington, CT 06489.
Mr. Korn spoke in support of moving forward with plan D2 with a referendum in
June 2026. The time is now to proceed with Elementary School Project. He would like to collaborate and work with the Board to see the project through; it is in the best interests of students and the community for generations to come.
8. Committee Reports
a. Districtwide Facilities Committee Meeting - January 27, 2026
Mr. Madancy referred to the Minutes from the Districtwide Facilities meeting that
were presented at the Special BOE Meeting on February 5, 2026. A decision needed
to be made at this meeting on February 19, 2026, regarding Phase 2 of the facilities
plan in order to move forward with a referendum in June 2026.
Attachments: (1)
Mr. Carson wanted an explanation regarding the committee briefly discussed and
identified unresolves questions related to facilities planning for Karen Smith
Academy (KSA) under scenario D2. Mr. Madancy clarified under Phase 2 there
would be a new KSA Facility built on the lower portion of the Derynoski lot along
with a new Derynoski.
b. Adoption of Districtwide Facilities Committee Recommended Master Facility Plan
Mr. Madancy introduced Pat Gallagher from MP Planning Group and Charles
Warrington from Colliers to give a presentation on updated information regarding
the Elementary Facilities Plan, Phase 2 and its estimated costs.
Mr. Gallagher presented the following:
• Background and process
o Phase I - Conditions and Trends
o Phase 2 -Assessing options
o Phase 3 - Preferred option and grant application
• Status Quo
o What happens if we do nothing
• What scenarios were considered
o Status Quo
o Scenario A
o Scenario B
o Scenario C
o Scenario D
• Why close Flanders
o Allows district to "right size" portfolio to enrollment
o Flanders has the smallest current and projected enrollment
o Location to other schools
o Kelley site is more favorable to construction
o Flander is smaller with an irregularly shaped site
• Recommended Scenario D - timeline
o Phase 1 - referendum 2026
o Facility consolidation - fall 2030
o Phase 2 - TBD
• Recommended Scenario D - Take aways
o Meets 21 st century teaching and learning needs
o Efficient Operation
o Effective Cost
o Parity
Mr. Warrington presented the following:
• Recommended Scenario D - Total costs
o New Kelley and South End Build-out
■ Estimated District Share $43.9 million
o New Derynoski and KSA
■ Estimated District Share - $60.5 million
o Total cost for Scenario D
■ Estimated District Share $104.3 million
o Timeline descriptions
■ June 2026 referendum
■ Grant application
■ Construction starts
■ Redistricting
Attachments: (1)
Mr. Carson asked about the potential additional 15% reimbursement for early
childhood education legislation. Mr. Warrington clarified this would be determined
in the overall reimbursement rate for new facility construction. Mr. Carson also
asked about the space waiver determination. Mr. Warrington would anticipate in the
Spring of 2027.
MOTION made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mrs. Carmody, "Move that
the Board of Education reapprove Phase 1 of the Districtwide Facilities
Committee Plan which included the building of a new Kelley School on the
Kelley property, demolish the old Kelley School, upon completion and complete
the build-out of South End School of the additional classrooms."
Mrs. Clark indicated this motion was already made and approved.
Mr. Brown and Mrs. Carmody withdrew the motion.
Mr. Oshana confirmed the Board already approved that motion in May of 2025.
MOTION made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mrs. Carmody, "Move that
the Board of Education approve the Districtwide Facilities Committee Master
Plan option as described in the plan document with the understanding that
Phase 1 has already been approved. This plan is a future-looking plan and as
conditions change over time will be reviewed again at the time when action will
need to be taken."
Mrs. Clark indicated that the motion did not explain what the plan for Phase 2 is.
There was no mention of D2 or the details of what was going to happen.
Mr. Brown and Mrs. Carmody withdrew the motion.
MOTION made by Mrs. Clark and seconded by Mr. Baczewski, "Recommend
that the Board of Education adopt the Districtwide Facilities Committee
Recommendation of the Master Facility Plan which includes two phases. Phase
1 is a recommendation that the Town of Southington has a 2026 Spring
referendum for the construction of a new larger Kelley Elementary School and
an interior expansion of the lower level of South End Elementary School. Upon
completion of the construction, Flanders Elementary School would close and
there would be redistricting of the seven remaining elementary schools. Phase 2
Includes a second referendum at a date TBD building a new Derynoski
Elementary and Karen Smith Academy on the lower level of the Derynoski
site."
Mr. Baczewski noted this is not something the Board has been secretive about. This
has been a transparent process, and they have encouraged people to come and
comment. Every decision that the Board comes to is not decided solely on fiscal
responsibility. The Board must be able to make reasonable decisions about where
dollars go and how things get shifted from year to year. He doesn't want to do too
much at one time and thinks what has been presented is a reasonable option. He
doesn't like the idea of closing a school, we have to do what it is right for right now.
In the future, things can change and maybe they reopen an elementary school.
Mrs. Clark stated this is a hard decision. None of it has been done in secret and all
the information is available to the public. The Board is trying to make a decision that
is equitable for everyone.
Mr. Whitehead identified how North Center School has been repurposed as the
Municipal Center. He has full confidence that the town will do the right thing. The
public has been heard but if the Municipal Center is an example of what can happen
with Flanders in the future, it is a pretty good future indicator of what can potentially
be done.
Ms. Cammuso is all for a neighborhood school and keeping a sense of community.
She believes putting fourth a new Kelley School and South End build-out into the
referendum is critical. It is tough talking about closing a school because there is so
much emotion. Children bounce back easier than adults; when they go to a new
school they will make friends and have fun. The school being repurposed and open
space would be beneficial to the community. Enrollment projections can change in 5
to 6 years when another Board will need to make a decision about a new Derynoski
and KSA to bring to referendum. This plan is what fits the community best at this
point in time and it is not just fiscal.
Mr. Brown indicated both parties agree on the first phase of this plan. It is
interesting and a big price tag to maintain the old buildings in the "do nothing"
scenario. A reputable company was hired that has done a lot of research, there were
public hearings, and the Board has been very transparent with the plan. He agrees
and would recommend the town not making the Flanders property residential. The
Board is in agreement it should be used as open space or repurposed for the
community.
Mrs. Carmody expressed the main concern of the Board is to do what is best for the
children in the community. There are mixed feelings about parts of the plan, and no
one wants to see a school close, but everyone wants to do what is best for the future
of Southington.
Mr. Carson expressed with the circumstances of Federal and State education
funding, the time is now, and the time is right. No one knows what the future holds,
but this Master Plan has the best chance of being reimbursed at the highest rate. This
is the most advantages and fiscally responsible plan for parents who have students in
the district but also taxpayers who don't have students in the district. This plan and
the decision leading up to it has been very intentional. The entire district and the
school within it are all community neighborhood, schools. He trusts that the town
will do the right thing with repurposing town owned public buildings. Memories and
relationships are not lost with the moving or closing of a physical building.
Mr. Oshana thanked all members of the Districtwide Facilities Committee. The
meetings have been open and transparent to the public. A determination has not been
made of what will happen with the Flanders property. It is already town property so
it wouldn't need to be purchased as open space and hopefully the building can be
repurposed as some sort of community center.
Roll Call:
• Mr. Baczewski: Yes
• Mr. Brown: Yes
• Ms. Cammuso: Yes
• Mrs. Carmody: Yes
• Mr. Carson: Yes
• Mrs. Clark: Yes
• Mrs. Derynoski-Anastasio: No
• Mr. Oshana: Yes
• Mr. Whitehead: Yes
Motion carried 8-1
Letter from Mrs. Derynoski-Anastasio on why she voted no: Letter from Mrs. Derynoski- Anastasio
The elementary facilities plan is an ambitious proposal to rebuild schools that could cost local taxpayers more than $100 million dollars. When accounting for possible cost overruns and inflation, the impact on local taxes may be even greater. This proposal is complicated and contains numerous uncertainties.
Having been elected just three and a half months ago, I have worked very hard to get caught up to speed on decisions and discussions that took place over the past two years, before I recently re-joined the Board of Education again. This is why I have several concerns that prevented me from voting yes, this evening.
First, I strongly support the concept of small neighborhood elementary schools. Closing Flanders elementary school while expanding Kelly elementary school and creating an even larger South End elementary school moves us away from that model.
Second, abandoning a well-constructed brick school in the center of town presents a significant concern. As a Board of Education member, I have never received complaints about Derynoski elementary school. Building a new school behind the existing site raises additional questions and concerns. As a lifelong resident of Southington, I have heard that the property may have a high-water table that could make construction challenging. I do not know if that is accurate, but it is an uncertainty that deserves clarity.
Let me be clear: I support rebuilding Flanders and Kelly elementary schools. However, I do not support constructing larger elementary schools that fail to preserve the advantages of smaller neighborhood schools.Southington already has a large high school and two very large middle schools.
Modern and well-maintained schools are essential for a thriving community. I would support a plan to rebuild Flanders now if one were presented. Unfortunately, the option before us does not allow for that. I support upgrading Kelly, but not in a way that closes Flanders, increases busing times, eliminates walkability, and leaves major unanswered questions about the future of the Derynoski and Flanders properties.
What happens to the existing Derynoski building? Will the Main Street school be demolished or sold for private development? What becomes of the 17 acres of Flanders property? These questions remain unanswered.
Prior to proceeding, it is important to ensure meaningful community outreach and dialogue, enabling the Board of Education to clearly and effectively communicate its vision regarding these properties to both municipal leaders and residents.
For these reasons, I cannot support the plan as presented tonight.
I understand that voting against the majority on an issue like this can be politically difficult. My responsibility, however, is to vote on what I believe is best for the children of the Southington Public School system. I hope my colleagues will respect that position and avoid unnecessary political attacks and division.
I want to thank the many residents who have reached out to share their perspectives. Their input reflects a deep commitment to our schools, our children, and the dedicated staff who serve them every day.
Sincerely,
Dawn Derynoski-Anastasio
March 9, 2026
Town Council Meeting Minutes
B. Elementary School Bond Ordinance Introduction
Mr. Madancy states that tonight they have Pat Gallagher from NP Planning Group and John Koplas from Colliers Project Leaders present. They have a presentation this evening to provide historical context to the process along with costs associated with the project. (Attachment #1) Pat Gallagher is a principal with NG Planning Group. He states the process started by looking at all of the facilities and the last date they underwent any major renovations. He states there are three facilities that have not undergone any major renovations in the past 35 years, which are Derynoski School, Flanders School and Kelley School. He states the goal of the plan was to identify strategies to address these schools and bring them into the 21st century. Mr. Gallagher states they have done a lot of gathering over the past five years starting with enrollment and capacity. They did some test fits to see how easily they could construct on the existing sites. They also did facility condition assessments to understand the amount of work the three facilities need in order to keep them warm, safe and dry. He states the three facilities need between $106 million to $116 million in capital improvements to maintain the buildings and keep them as they are. He states the current enrollment figures has each of the sites under 85-90 percent utilization. He states they looked at a range of scenarios including modernizing schools, school closures and an array of school sizes. He notes the challenges are that the state grants consider districtwide enrollment and utilization, enrollment needs to support the amount of space and the project needing to align with the town’s bonding capacity. He states scenario D best aligned with all requirements for the town. They are suggesting to close Flanders School as it is not as accommodating for new construction on-site and has the least enrollment. He states the recommended scenario D, endorsed by the Board of Education, calls for two phases. Phase1 is a new Kelley School and to expand South End School. Kelley School will be built on a different part of the site allowing students to stay in the current school until completion. It will be slightly larger than the existing school. The other part of Phase 1 will be the expansion of South End School. The school was built with the potential addition of five classrooms in the lowerlevel. Most of the work has already been roughed in and Phase 1 would finalize those spaces. Following the completion of those projects, Flanders School would be closed and would be the fall of 2030 at the earliest. Phase 2 would be a future referendum to build a new Derynoski School and a new Karen Smith Academy. Redistricting would happen no later than 2029. Mr. Gallagher states scenario D meets 21st century teaching and learning needs and allows them to build new buildings that align with the way teachers teach and students learn. It also allows the district to right size its portfolio of buildings and operations and it is cost effective. He adds that it creates parity and allows for the same conditions and quality education across all facilities.
Mr. Koplas states the first referendum would be in June 2026 for Kelley School and South End School and the second referendum would be in the fall of 2029 for Derynoski School and the Karen Smith Academy. The cost for Kelley and South End Schools is $86.4 million with the district cost being $39.7 million after state reimbursement. The town would hear from the state by June 2027 if they are approved and going to receive the funding. If approved, the design phase is approximately 16 months then move on to the approval process through the town and then the state. Once approved the schools would be constructed with a projected opening in the fall of 2030. Mr. Koplas opens the floor to questions.
Mr. Morrison states the enrollment is less than projected. He states the enrollment was 89 students less than projected and has been decreasing over the past few years. He asks if the trend continues will that impact the cost.
Mr. Gallagher states that the enrollment is less than projected but not enough to make a difference in the number of classrooms required. He states the age to enter Kindergarten changed which affected enrollment and notes that the housing market is slow right now which is also affecting enrollment.
Mr. Palmieri asks for an explanation as to why the referendum would be in June as opposed to November.
Mr. Koplas states that to his understanding the referendum was initially supposed to be last November. He states the reason for a June referendum is because of the challenges of making sure all of the statutes are met and if they wait until November they then would have to wait until June of 2027. He adds they are ultimately trying to control the costs of escalation. He adds that the pre-k program provides an additional 15 percent savings to the reimbursement rate and we are able to achieve that savings by incorporating the pre-k plan into the Kelley School plan. Mrs. Guida states that the prices given are 2025 prices but they don’t know what the cost will be when they break ground and don’t know what the prices will be if they wait until November for a referendum.
Mr. Chaplinsky asks if there would be any planned layoffs of teachers.
Mr. Madancy states there would be reduction in staff but doesn't know if there would necessarily be layoffs. He says it will depend on what they have for retirements or unfulfilled positions. He states when he presented the proposal he didn’t note layoffs because you still have the same amount of positions to spread across 7 schools as opposed to 8.
Mr. Chaplinsky also asks about windows in the basement of South End School.
Mr. Madancy states that with the grade of the land there will be windows in all of the lower level classrooms.
Mr. Chaplinsky states there is interest from Community Services to use Flanders School if the school is closed.
Mrs. Clock asks about a slide in the presentation and the cost associated with keeping the schools the way they are. She states it would cost $105 -116 million to keep the schools the way they are with major capital improvements.
VII. PublicCommunications*
Shama Greene, 67 Memorial Drive.
She states she is present this evening because the Board of the Education's plan was approved on February 19 and is being brought to the Town Council this evening. She agrees that Kelly, Flanders and Derynoski are all in need of renovations. She does not agree with the plan. She doesn't believe the entire process has been transparent with the community. She states with a project of this magnitude there should have been community participation. She states at a district-wide facilities committee meeting on February 27, 2023, Colleen Clark, the Board of Education Chair, stated that she highlighted the importance of community involvement and had the intention of inviting three community members to join the committee. Also at that meeting Superintendent Madancy states that conversations relative to the elementary facilities would be limited to those on the committee and has resulted in limited town-wide community awareness and understanding. She goes on to say that at another district- wide facilities committee meeting on February 21, 2024, Chuck Warrington from Colliers suggested polling community members for community outreach. She states that Mr. Chaplinsky expressed skepticism about obtaining representative data through polls. She states no members from the community were ever asked to join the committee and there were no polls. She states these are examples of how the community has not been kept in the loop. She adds that the district-wide facilities committee did not hold meetings that were open to the public. The committee has met nine times since 2021. She states it is a largeproject and meeting nine times in five years does not tell her that the committee carefully researched and discussed all possible options. She states that until March 1 only the agendas and meeting minutes from the past two years were available online adding that the agendas and minutes from 2021 through 2024 were only added recently. She states not only was the public not allowed to attend the meetings but there was also no way for the public to know when a meeting had taken place. She states it highlights the broader lack of transparency. She states financially this plan raises questions. One concern is the lack of architectural drawings. She states that in the past research on feasibility and cost was done up front. She states without architectural renderings the costs are just estimates. Mr. Madancy sent a message on parentsquare stating that the plans would not be available until after the referendum was approved. She states the state has strict square footage guidelines that have to be met to qualify for the reimbursement rate. She states taxpayers have gone through re-evaluation of their properties and state taxes are going to increase and they are now asking the taxpayers to approve a project that will have a big impact on taxes. She states for a project of this magnitude they need more transparency with the community.
Sara Howard, 453 Pleasant St.
Mrs. Howard is the PTO president at Flanders Elementary School. She states it has been noted that plans have been shared but people still have a lot of questions. She encourages anyone who has not watched the January 27 district-wide facilities to take the time and watch it. She states in that video it shows leadership is unclear on what was voted on already. She states she has a call to action for the council. She states there is a lack of trust and transparency that needs to be addressed. She asks the council to invest in people. She states if they value their constituents and being transparent and want them to trust their decisions then she asks them to address and explain what big problem they will have if their referendum gets voted down. She asks for time with the superintendent for all schools and not just KelleySchool. She also asks that they present the benefits and challenges of the project in a clear and concise way. She adds that the chair of the Board of Education called parents crazy at the January 27th meeting. She asks that they don’t call parents crazy. She also asks them to explain the increase in taxes if the project is approved. She also asks for explanation on how it is effective to repurpose as school when the cost of maintenance was cited at $23 million and was a reason to close Flanders School. She adds that the cost of referendums is tens of thousands of dollars and would like to know where those funds come from. She urges the council to make sure committee members educate themselves on the topic at hand before saying yes.
Sherrie Shover, 60 Tanglewood Dr.
She states the meeting has been going on for over 3 ½ hours before public communications. She states if they want more public participation it would be nice to speak earlier this evening. She states that earlier in the evening she was at her daughter’s kindergarten registration at DePaolo Middle School. She states the district-wide facilities plan will directly affect families like hers. She states it will shape the elementary school system for years to come. She supports modernization and supports our schools having investment. She states doing nothing is not an option but urgency should not be a substitute for readiness. She states the schools have been discussed for a long time but moving forward with the plan has only been discussed within the past few months. She states that right now most of the opposition is not to modernization but rather to uncertainty. She adds that families are not saying never, but saying help us understand. She states voters deserve to understand. She wants to understand if the referendum fails will taxpayers have to pay for extensive repairs on an aging facility. She also wants to know projected class size by grade. She states taxpayers want to understand staffing and transportation impacts including price impacts and longest bus rides. She also wants to understand the full financial picture. She states without the clarity it becomes harder for taxpayers to move forward with confidence. She states she would like to see a stronger effort to bring the community together around a shared understanding. She states she is not against the plan but not yet ready to stand behind it with confidence.
A. Action to Refer Elementary School Bond Ordinance to PZC and Schedule a Public Hearing
Mr. DelSanto makes a motion to refer the elementary school bond ordinance to Planning and Zoning and schedule a public hearing on March 23 and again on April 6 if needed and extend it ultimately to April27 if needed for a proposed referendum date of June 2.
Mrs. Clock seconds the motion. (Attachment #9, Proposed Authorization Calendar)
Mr. Morrison states they need to understand that this is being done during budget season where emotions run high. He states they all have to be sure and what it means financially to the town.
The roll is called and passes with Mrs. Guida, Mr. Zoni and Mr. Palmieri voting no. All other council members vote yes. (Attachment #10)
Mr. Koplas states the first referendum would be in June 2026 for Kelley School and South End School and the second referendum would be in the fall of 2029 for Derynoski School and the Karen Smith Academy. The cost for Kelley and South End Schools is $86.4 million with the district cost being $39.7 million after state reimbursement. The town would hear from the state by June 2027 if they are approved and going to receive the funding. If approved, the design phase is approximately 16 months then move on to the approval process through the town and then the state. Once approved the schools would be constructed with a projected opening in the fall of 2030. Mr. Koplas opens the floor to questions.
Mr. Morrison states the enrollment is less than projected. He states the enrollment was 89 students less than projected and has been decreasing over the past few years. He asks if the trend continues will that impact the cost.
Mr. Gallagher states that the enrollment is less than projected but not enough to make a difference in the number of classrooms required. He states the age to enter Kindergarten changed which affected enrollment and notes that the housing market is slow right now which is also affecting enrollment.
Mr. Palmieri asks for an explanation as to why the referendum would be in June as opposed to November.
Mr. Koplas states that to his understanding the referendum was initially supposed to be last November. He states the reason for a June referendum is because of the challenges of making sure all of the statutes are met and if they wait until November they then would have to wait until June of 2027. He adds they are ultimately trying to control the costs of escalation. He adds that the pre-k program provides an additional 15 percent savings to the reimbursement rate and we are able to achieve that savings by incorporating the pre-k plan into the Kelley School plan. Mrs. Guida states that the prices given are 2025 prices but they don’t know what the cost will be when they break ground and don’t know what the prices will be if they wait until November for a referendum.
Mr. Chaplinsky asks if there would be any planned layoffs of teachers.
Mr. Madancy states there would be reduction in staff but doesn't know if there would necessarily be layoffs. He says it will depend on what they have for retirements or unfulfilled positions. He states when he presented the proposal he didn’t note layoffs because you still have the same amount of positions to spread across 7 schools as opposed to 8.
Mr. Chaplinsky also asks about windows in the basement of South End School.
Mr. Madancy states that with the grade of the land there will be windows in all of the lower level classrooms.
Mr. Chaplinsky states there is interest from Community Services to use Flanders School if the school is closed.
Mrs. Clock asks about a slide in the presentation and the cost associated with keeping the schools the way they are. She states it would cost $105 -116 million to keep the schools the way they are with major capital improvements.
VII. PublicCommunications*
Shama Greene, 67 Memorial Drive.
She states she is present this evening because the Board of the Education's plan was approved on February 19 and is being brought to the Town Council this evening. She agrees that Kelly, Flanders and Derynoski are all in need of renovations. She does not agree with the plan. She doesn't believe the entire process has been transparent with the community. She states with a project of this magnitude there should have been community participation. She states at a district-wide facilities committee meeting on February 27, 2023, Colleen Clark, the Board of Education Chair, stated that she highlighted the importance of community involvement and had the intention of inviting three community members to join the committee. Also at that meeting Superintendent Madancy states that conversations relative to the elementary facilities would be limited to those on the committee and has resulted in limited town-wide community awareness and understanding. She goes on to say that at another district- wide facilities committee meeting on February 21, 2024, Chuck Warrington from Colliers suggested polling community members for community outreach. She states that Mr. Chaplinsky expressed skepticism about obtaining representative data through polls. She states no members from the community were ever asked to join the committee and there were no polls. She states these are examples of how the community has not been kept in the loop. She adds that the district-wide facilities committee did not hold meetings that were open to the public. The committee has met nine times since 2021. She states it is a largeproject and meeting nine times in five years does not tell her that the committee carefully researched and discussed all possible options. She states that until March 1 only the agendas and meeting minutes from the past two years were available online adding that the agendas and minutes from 2021 through 2024 were only added recently. She states not only was the public not allowed to attend the meetings but there was also no way for the public to know when a meeting had taken place. She states it highlights the broader lack of transparency. She states financially this plan raises questions. One concern is the lack of architectural drawings. She states that in the past research on feasibility and cost was done up front. She states without architectural renderings the costs are just estimates. Mr. Madancy sent a message on parentsquare stating that the plans would not be available until after the referendum was approved. She states the state has strict square footage guidelines that have to be met to qualify for the reimbursement rate. She states taxpayers have gone through re-evaluation of their properties and state taxes are going to increase and they are now asking the taxpayers to approve a project that will have a big impact on taxes. She states for a project of this magnitude they need more transparency with the community.
Sara Howard, 453 Pleasant St.
Mrs. Howard is the PTO president at Flanders Elementary School. She states it has been noted that plans have been shared but people still have a lot of questions. She encourages anyone who has not watched the January 27 district-wide facilities to take the time and watch it. She states in that video it shows leadership is unclear on what was voted on already. She states she has a call to action for the council. She states there is a lack of trust and transparency that needs to be addressed. She asks the council to invest in people. She states if they value their constituents and being transparent and want them to trust their decisions then she asks them to address and explain what big problem they will have if their referendum gets voted down. She asks for time with the superintendent for all schools and not just KelleySchool. She also asks that they present the benefits and challenges of the project in a clear and concise way. She adds that the chair of the Board of Education called parents crazy at the January 27th meeting. She asks that they don’t call parents crazy. She also asks them to explain the increase in taxes if the project is approved. She also asks for explanation on how it is effective to repurpose as school when the cost of maintenance was cited at $23 million and was a reason to close Flanders School. She adds that the cost of referendums is tens of thousands of dollars and would like to know where those funds come from. She urges the council to make sure committee members educate themselves on the topic at hand before saying yes.
Sherrie Shover, 60 Tanglewood Dr.
She states the meeting has been going on for over 3 ½ hours before public communications. She states if they want more public participation it would be nice to speak earlier this evening. She states that earlier in the evening she was at her daughter’s kindergarten registration at DePaolo Middle School. She states the district-wide facilities plan will directly affect families like hers. She states it will shape the elementary school system for years to come. She supports modernization and supports our schools having investment. She states doing nothing is not an option but urgency should not be a substitute for readiness. She states the schools have been discussed for a long time but moving forward with the plan has only been discussed within the past few months. She states that right now most of the opposition is not to modernization but rather to uncertainty. She adds that families are not saying never, but saying help us understand. She states voters deserve to understand. She wants to understand if the referendum fails will taxpayers have to pay for extensive repairs on an aging facility. She also wants to know projected class size by grade. She states taxpayers want to understand staffing and transportation impacts including price impacts and longest bus rides. She also wants to understand the full financial picture. She states without the clarity it becomes harder for taxpayers to move forward with confidence. She states she would like to see a stronger effort to bring the community together around a shared understanding. She states she is not against the plan but not yet ready to stand behind it with confidence.