By Michelle L. Santoro

Sherman – A special meeting of the Board of Selectmen (“BOS” or “Board”) was held Tuesday, August 6 at 7:00 p.m. in Charter Hall to discuss, among other items, possible borrowing scenarios for the proposed school building project.

Prior to a discussion on borrowing, First Selectman Don Lowe motioned to appoint Amber Vlangas and Susanna Marker to the Sherman Commission of the Arts.  Both appointment motions were seconded by Selectman Bob Ostrosky and the Board voted unanimously in favor of each.

Because of illness, Mr. Lowe exited the meeting early, giving power of authority to Mr. Ostrosky thus enabling the meeting to proceed.  At its monthly meeting on July 25, the Town’s bonding analyst Barry Bernabe (Phoenix Advisors, LLC) presented the Board, and the Town, with three borrowing scenario options.  They were: one bond issue with one twenty-year note (Scenario #1), two bond issues and two notes for a total of twenty-five years (Scenario #2) and three bond issues and three notes for a total of twenty-five years (Scenario #3).

Mr. Ostrosky summarized Scenario #3.  He opined that such a scenario would be too complicated to explain to residents.  Ostrosky recommended that the Board focus its discussion on Scenarios #1 and #2 but noted his preference for Scenario #2.  Ostrosky went on to state he was “open minded” in considering Scenario #1, with adequate opinion and preference by others.   Speaking on her own and on behalf of Mr. Lowe, Town Treasurer Andrea Maloney supported Ostrosky’s position that Scenarios #1 and #2 were preferable to Scenario #3.  Ms. Maloney noted that use of the Town capital surplus could help soften the expense associated with the borrowing.

Contrary to Ostrosky, Selectman Joel Bruzinski indicated he was leaning toward Scenario #1, and like Mr. Ostrosky, he was not opposed to considering the other scenario.  In support of his preference, Mr. Bruzinski said Scenario #2 did not provide enough of an initial tax impact to justify the overall cost differential, in his opinion.  Further opining, Bruzinski said, Scenario #1 mitigates the expense and tax increase, along with leaning on the use of the Town’s cash reserve.  Regardless of the scenario chosen, the Board agreed that communicating (and explaining) the tax implications to the residents poses the greatest challenge to the Town.  Discussion ensued on the two scenarios, following which the Board agreed that Scenario #2 was the best option for the Town. Recapping from the Board’s July meeting, the Town is in good fiscal standing; however, potential challenges to the borrowing process include the introduction of new and costly major projects that could arise.

Following agreement, Mr. Ostrosky motioned to accept borrowing Scenario #2, which results in in two Bond issues and two notes for a total of twenty-five years.  As noted by Mr. Bernabe on July 25, if debt is layered over time, i.e., the funds needed to pay for the project are borrowed in pieces, residents feel the tax implication less.  The goal is to keep overall debt as flat as possible.  The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion to accept Scenario #2 as the borrowing option for the Town.