Facilities Committee reviews Middlesex Middle School educational specifications, including proposed 800-seat auditorium

The Darien Facilities Committee met March 26 to review a 72-page draft of educational specifications for Middlesex Middle School and discuss the program, schedule and financing for a major renovation and a proposed two-story addition.

"The building was built in two primary phases," said Eric Hire of KG&B, who led the consultants' presentation, noting the campus totals about 195,000 square feet and roughly 6½ acres. Hire said a full modern replacement would be "about a almost a $200,000,000 project," and that the draft renovation estimate the district has been using is in the roughly "$80.85 to $95,000,000" range; the team said it will seek a second opinion and formal cost estimate from the construction manager.

Why it matters: the document (the "ed specs") defines the spaces, equipment and capacities the district will use to seek state school-construction grants. The consultants and administration said the ed specs are required to assemble a state grant application that, for projects of this scale, is typically submitted by June 30 for priority review.

What the specs propose: the consultants described program-level changes that include increasing general classrooms from about 42 to roughly 50, expanding science labs from 8 to 12, adding two special-education rooms and two flexible fitness spaces, and creating a larger multipurpose/auditorium complex. The most attention focused on a proposed stepped-floor, 800-seat auditorium adjacent to music spaces; Hire said the current theater seats about 400 and has obstructed sight lines.

Support and skepticism: several committee members said the district needs clearer programmatic and usage data before committing to an expensive auditorium. One committee member asked, "From who?" and said they had not seen data on the number and type of events that would justify a new auditorium; another member called the proposal "a very inequitable investment into performing arts" if it primarily benefits extracurricular uses rather than curricular needs.

Administrators and supporters countered that a middle-school auditorium would reduce scheduling conflicts with the high school auditorium — "those ensembles are sharing the high school auditorium which is heavily used over the school year," a committee member said — and would allow more rehearsals without moving equipment or bussing students during instructional time.

Budget and funding mechanics: presenters reiterated that the town must fund the project up front and the state reimburses eligible costs at the district's reimbursement rate. As an example, consultants noted that at a 20% reimbursement rate a $90 million project would yield about $18 million in state funds; the presenters stressed many items (larger-than-standard seats, expanded lobby areas or other optional elements) may not qualify for reimbursement.

Community impacts and outstanding information requests: committee members raised traffic, parking and neighborhood concerns — specifically parent drop-off patterns, bus routing and the loss of mature trees on a hillside where the science addition and auditorium would sit. Staff said a traffic study typically requires an RFP, award and around two months of consultant work and is unlikely to be finished in time for a June submission. Committee members requested pre- and post-construction site plans, a clear deferred-maintenance list with cost comparisons (what is included now vs what would be left for later) and a small table comparing alternatives (use of gym space or town facilities, frequency of events, set-up labor and cost).

Schedule choices ahead: presenters said the district has two options: accelerate to meet a June grant deadline (and assemble the required local resolutions, meeting minutes and cost estimates quickly), or step back and refine the ed specs, traffic analyses and cost estimates and submit next year. Dr. Byrne and consultants said stepping back would likely delay state reimbursement timing but could produce a stronger application supported by clearer local data. The consultants recommended authorizing additional study and schematic/conceptual design work to refine the scope and budget before submission.

Next steps: the committee expected to review the comments at the April 8 board meeting; presenters said final cost estimates and a recommendation about whether to pursue the June submission would follow. The committee also requested the staff explore a traffic study budget, provide a deferred-maintenance itemized list and return with clearer parking and site plans.

The meeting moved on to other items after the discussion.