By Michelle L. Santoro

Sherman – The Sherman Board of Education (“BOE” or “Board”) held a public hearing immediately followed by a special meeting on July 23 for purposes of presenting and a hearing on educational specifications and viable project pathways for the Sherman School.  The Board noted just over two dozen residents in attendance on Zoom, plus those who attended in person.  Board Chair Matt Vogt jumped into a recap of how the Board, and Sherman, got to the present day – reminding all in attendance of the residents’ questions that lingered following the failed referendum last fall.

Mr. Vogt quickly summarized prior BOE meeting findings, including the realization that an expansion of the current interdistrict cooperative would be more costly than for the Town to renovate and/or repair the current building, and the building of a new school was not a viable option for Sherman.  The Board also had to verify enrollment projections.  These realizations left the Board with two viable options to consider: Option 1 – a plan to just fix what is broken and repair the K-wing to its original use, which would take six years to complete and Option 2 – a Renovate-to-New Plan, adding grade 5 to the middle school.

For Option 2, with the help of elected officials, the State enacted Special Legislation with a guaranteed state reimbursement rate of thirty percent.  It involves a compre hensive renovation, reducing the footprint, resulting in a facility that meets the educational needs of the district based on current and future student population.  Construction would be complete in two years.  This option utilizes an architect, an owner’s project manager, and a construction manager.  The construction manager’s contract would be a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), which means that maximum price is the total cost to the Town, even if construction costs were higher.  However, if the total cost is less, the contract permits the Town to recoup the excess.  This option meets state requirements which mandate that a municipality demonstrate that construction of a new facility is more costly than a renovation project.  

Board member Tim Laughlin briefly summarized three capital improvement plans originally considered (Option 1).  Discussing the updated Friar report, it was found by experts that significant decline occurred in several systems since the first analysis prior to the failed referendum.   He then went on to summarize Option 2.  The cost differential between the two options is nearly $3.5 mi., with Option 2 costing more; however, those costs are before state reimbursement.     

Because most of the estimated work in Option 1 is considered maintenance, it is not eligible for state reimbursement, which is a maximum of 12.5%, resulting in an estimated cost of $33,790,611 to the Town.  Versus, Option 2, which falls under the Special Legislation passed in May and guarantees the Town a minimum of 30% reimbursement for eligible work, resulting in an estimated cost of $29,469,437 to the Town under the estimates presented.

Next, the Pros and Cons of both options were summarized.  These can be seen on the video recording beginning at 20mins. 30sec.&n bsp; Briefly, Option 1 pros are a restoration of K-wing to its intended use and maintaining the existing educational program based on the 2000 renovation; and cons are a 6-year construction schedule, limited eligibility for reimbursement and significant disruptions to the educational environment.  Option 2 pros are a shorter construction schedule, bringing the school to the state required 20-year standard and guaranteed state reimbursement and cons being the loss of the historic K-wing and disruption to students’ education during construction.

Those in attendance received a presentation on Educational Specifications.

Prior to the BOE choosing an option for recommendation to the Board of Selectmen (“BOS”), the Board conducted a public hearing.  Mr. Vogt began by reading correspondence received from the Arbeit’s, a “senior” couple with no children in the school, who support either a new school on the property of the old school or Option 2.  They wrote, “Being cheap on the backs of the children in this community is an embarrassment not to mention certainly not helping anyone’s property values. That we do not prioritize the safety of the children in this Town while providing a high quality of education – let’s spend money on top teachers too, reflects poorly on the value of this and residents in this wonderful Town.”

Those residents who spoke, did so overwhelmingly in favor of Option 2.  An in-person attendee stood up in support of it, saying it was a “no brainer.”     First Selectman Don Lowe spoke, thanking the Board for its diligent work, and voicing his preference for Option 2.  Dan Greenbaum also spoke, noting how impressed he was with all the work that has been done.  He encourages the community to “get behind” Option 2.  “I’d like to see the referendum be a total win!”  Another resident from Benchmark Road spoke in favor of it, noting the benefits to taxpayers.  He said, “Let’s do the sensible thing. Let’s do what’s right for the kids, right for the individual taxpayers in terms of their property values, right for the school budget and operations by supporting Option #2.”  Stephe n Frattini, who was born and raised in Sherman and recently returned with young children, spoke in favor of providing a high-quality education and in support of Option 2.  Rosemarie Adams, speaking on behalf of her family, stood up in support of it too.  One resident questioned whether the Board considered the size of the rooms and student capacity.  Mr. Vogt addressed the question advising that there was room to grow in the foreseeable future, noting he had no concern that the reduction in the building’s footprint would negatively affect the school community.  Discussion ensued.

No Zoom participants spoke, and no one stood up in favor of Option 1 or against either option.  Mr. Laughlin noted comments he received from three taxpayers regarding their desire to see money spent on installing solar panels on flat roofs, only, the approximate cost of which is $521,000, prior to reimbursement, yielding approximately 150 KW.  Following the close of the public hearing, the Board discussed the different options. It then voted unanimously to recommend to the BOS proceeding with Option 2, for a cost not-to-exceed $42,500,000 to renovate-to-new the existing Sherman School.

Mr. Vogt then moved to approve the modified grade groupings, which includes fifth grade in the middle school.  The motion passed unanimously.  He also motioned to approve the preliminary educational specifications.    Discussion ensued with a summary of the 40-page preliminary draft presented by Mr. Laughlin, which is a component of the application to the State for the project.  The BOE plans to seek an additional ten percent reimbursement from the State, and hopes an answer is received prior to the Town Meeting preceding the proposed referendum date.  The motion to accept passed unanimously and the special meeting ended nearly two hours after its start.