By Michelle L. Santoro

SHERMAN – The Sherman Board of Education (“BOE” or “Board”) and School Building Committee (“SBC”) (collectively, the BOE and SBC are referred to as the “Boards”) met jointly for a second time, on Thursday, July 13, to discuss educational needs and the finalized preferred option plans for school renovation, as well as construction phasing options, construction timing, and related approval, review, and next steps.

At the meeting’s start, it was announced that Pam Bonner resigned as Chair of the SBC, which resignation was accepted by the Board.  Ms. Bonner was thanked for her year plus work as Chair and on the SBC. 

The Boards listened to a presentation by the architectural firm, Antinozzi Associates, addressing concerns about and changes to the plans, including space changes and relocating the multi-purpose space downstairs.  Completed plan drafts, as revised, were expected for the BOE in time for its retreat on July 19.  

With respec t to the Site, revisions were made based on comments received from the BOE, including a change in the number of proposed parking spaces.  Approximately 3-400 square feet were added, a relatively modest adjustment, according to the architects, bringing the gross square foot total to about 68,000.  The proposed building area is over 64,000 square feet.  A “space waiver” may be sought for state reimbursement purposes. 

Updates to the cost worksheets were discussed.  With respect to Option 4 – a more compact building with a greenhouse, the elimination of D-wing, extensive construction along a portion of the building and extensive demolition – construction costs are estimated to be $39,289,246, which represents $627/sq. ft., with a total cost, after adding seventeen percent to construction costs, of $45,968,418, or just over $734/sq. ft.  

Next, discussion ensued regarding various fees for the project.  The architects’ fee is based on 6.25% of the construction budget/construction costs.  It was noted that fees for pre-referendum work undertaken were at an agreed upon cost; moving forward fees are a percentage of cost. 

The architect went on, presenting timeframes for the next stages.  The schematic design phase is expected to go on for two months and design development another three months.  At the design development meeting with the State, a multitude of forms are required. Other dates/deadlines were discussed.   As an example, food service equipment must be ordered by April 15 if summer construction commences, and completion of the cafeteria is expected for the start of the school year.  The Boards listened to different scenarios and timeframes depending on whether the Town incurred fees prior to a referendum, or if next steps and additional work do not commence prior to the passing of a referendum on the school building project.

BOE Chair Matt Vogt asked the pointed question – to stay on track, with costs, pricing, and construction commencing next summer – if that meant the Town undertaking fees prior to a referendum; the answer – yes.  Design fees – now – are approximately $830,000; if, however, the design stage does not commence until after a (favorable) referendum, design fees increase the total cost of the project by almost $3.4 mil.   The Boards went back and forth discussing the two risk scenarios – risking $830,000 now, or increased costs following a delay.  Almost advising against delay, since most are aware of the state of the building, BOE Member Tim Laughlin advised that the BOE was informed the air conditioning in the K-wing went from critical failure to complete failure.  “We’re trying to get a shovel in the ground next summer, with good reason.”  Superintendent Patricia Cosentino said, “we’re throwing good money after bad.”  Mr. Vogt said, “sounds like we have decisions ….”

A board member raised concern over security and the outdoor classroom, to which the architects responded by assuring concerns such as that are addressed during the design phase.  Following the presentation and discussion, the SBC voted to accept Option 4, as revised and tweaked, as the final plan for school renovation.  The SBC then voted to formally name the project The Sherman School Renovation Project.  

Next, discussion about next steps continued.  Next steps include whether the SBC recommends to the Board of Selectmen to ask residents to approve an expenditure of $830,000 for design services, now, or recommend waiting until after a referendum and in so doing, adding an additional $3.4 mil to the total cost of the project as well as delaying construction start until after the 2024/25 school year.  A feasible date for a referendum was also discussed.  Throwing a wrench in timing is the fact that this year is a Gen eral Election year.  If primaries happen, the State has set the date therefore October 12, making the soonest referendum date October 14.  Other dates include December 9 or January 20, 2024.

When discussing the most beneficial date for a referendum, the Boards discussed the application submission to the State, which is anticipated for August, and statutory reimbursement by the State for renovation projects.

After discussion, Mr. Vogt made a motion to recommend to the Board of Selectmen to appropriate additional funding for architectural, engineering, and related services to continue project development and to schedule a referendum to take place in 2023, which was seconded by SBC Member Joel Bruzinski.  The motion passed unanimously.

After the motion, the SBC moved to its general business for the remainder of the meeting, including amendments to architectural service fees, the bond impact analysis and a discussion about timing for testing of PCBs, as well as discussing correspondence received, which was tabled to the next meeting to allow the SBC to review and respond.