By, Michelle L. Santoro

Sherman – Following a request by the Sherman School Building Committee (“SBC”), the Sherman Board of Selectmen (“BOS”), also acting as the Board of Finance (“BOF”), held a special meeting – in person and on ZOOM, on Tuesday, August 1 at the Sherman School Library.

At the outset, Katy Osborn spoke during public comment conveying her excitement for “everyone to be all together and hopeful everyone (all the boards) present will be on the same page” at the end of the meeting.  First Selectman Don Lowe noted the nice sentiment from Ms. Osborn.  Quickly, Mr. Lowe handed the proverbial microphone to Tim Laughlin, member of both the Board of Education (“BOE”) and the SBC, to advise on the SBC’s progress to date.  (Collectively, the BOS/BOF, BOE and SBC are referred to as the “Boards”).  Mr. Laughlin gave a brief historical overview of how the SBC got to this point.  The SBC retained Antinozzi Associates (“Antinozzi”) to lead the architectural and engineering team and Construction Solutions Group to lead the Owner’s Project Manager team that represents the town throughout the project.

Michael LoSasso, a principal at Antinozzi, provided all in attendance a visual history of the age and use of the current building, the first portion of which was constructed in the 1930s.  Mr. Laughlin reviewed the challenges that must be addressed together.  They are failing HVAC system components, water system upgrades and replacements, poorly engineered and coordinated roofing systems, multiple “Building Envelope” issues – failing components such as doors, windows, soffits, and siding; prevalent air and water infiltration issues resulting from several types of construction and materials used in each building addition – and electrical system upgrades.

Mr. LoSasso then reviewed statutory mandates and constraints legislated by the State to justify the usage of state grant money.  “We have to be very careful about how we classify the work,” Lo Sasso said.  Mr. Laughlin pointed out that the school must be constructed and/or renovated to meet current standards, it cannot simply be repaired “as is.”  He noted a new, stringent air quality requirement set to go into effect in 2024, which cannot be met with the current system.  Laughlin provided a general overview of the seven (7) repair and renovation options analyzed and considered by the SBC.  “We are in a different safety and security setting than we were in 1999,” Mr. Laughlin said.

LoSasso presented the Boards with the preferred renovation option for the school – including significant upgrades to the locker rooms, which will be on the same level as the gym – the option’s plans, conceptual specifications, and removal/demolition plan.  The proposed site plan includes 120 parking spaces, a north facing main entrance, parent drop-off plus bus separation, space for a multi-use hard court, secure playgrounds, a multi-purpose grass field, access to Veter an’s Park, fencing and screening, and a plan to protect the existing oak tree.    

Next, dates for the separate phases were discussed.  If the project is approved by the Town and all deadlines met, Construction Phase I is anticipated to commence in April 2024 and continue through September 2024.  The approximate date range for the other phases is Construction Phase II August 2024 – February 2025, Construction Phase III (latter stages of construction) March 2025 – June 2025, with anticipated completion in August 2025.

The Boards were able to view – with explanation from Laughlin and LoSasso – a timeline for referendum, required pre-referendum expenses and impacts, public presentations, fees, and application deadlines.  October 7 was discussed as a tentative referendum date, with alternate dates of December 9 and January 20, 2024.  As mentioned during a previous meeting, if a referendum does not occur until the new year without design fee pre-payment, the project cost increases by $3.4 mil.  Selectman Bob Ostrosky voiced concern about ample time to educate the town/registered voters – including school parent voters – on the project prior to any referendum.  Mr. Lowe suggested town forums, noting the SBC should be able to schedule at least two prior to a referendum.  Another in attendance suggested sending the link to the recorded presentation to residents via NIXLE.  Mr. LoSasso reminded the Boards that the public is aware of the project, it is just a matter of getting the details out there.  He said, the longer the time is extended, the more apathy there is toward the project.

From “soup to nuts,” Mr. Laughlin discussed the financing costs for the project (a complete breakdown of which can be viewed at the 1-hr. mark of the recorded meeting).  The total cost is $45,968,418, with $33,933,063 as the expected net amount to be bonded by the Town.  Laughlin summarized the proposal for how the Town pays for the project.  Lastly, the four resolutions required by the state to proceed were discussed.  If the SBC is authorized to proceed with pre-payment of schematic drawings, outline specifications, and associated architectural, engineering, and related design services (pre-construction costs), voters must approve an appropriation of $340/k to the SBC. 

Discussion ensued following the end of the slide presentation.  Mr. Ostrosky asked about the status of PCB testing and was advised that a recommendation was made to test only the portions of the building slated for demolition for the presence of hazardous materials that could end up in landfills.  Mr. Lowe asked whether the SBC remains intact throughout the project stages – if the town approves – to which Mr. Laughlin answered yes.  The state requires the project to be maintained as a school for twenty years to keep 100% of state reimbursement of some project costs.  Mr. Lowe asked for clarification on the four required resolutions.  The various members of the Boards discussed possible dates for future meetings.      

The BOS voted to bring to Town Meeting a request for an amount not to exceed $340,000 from the capital non-recurring fund for schematic drawings, outline specifications, and associated architectural, engineering and related design services.    They also voted in favor of the remaining three Resolutions.    A Town Meeting was scheduled for Monday, August 14 at 7pm in Charter Hall.

Residents speaking during public comment thanked all Boards for their work.

A recording of the special meeting can be viewed at: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOvOr1DsnY&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.shermanschool.com%2F&feature=emb_title.