Hinsdale Renovation Project

Ad Hoc Facilities Community has been developed to facilitate a building development plan that will ultimately advise the renovation of school buildings within Winchester. 

Committee Members

Steven Frazier, Chair
David Carter, Vice Chair 

Melissa Bird
Melony Brady-Shanley
Dale Denning
Robert Geiger 
Michelle Hintz

Norman Kelly
Nancy O'Dea-Wyrick 
Candy Perez
Doug Pfenninger 
Michael Ruzbason
Tony Sandonato
Bruce Stratford
Steve Vaill 

We work consistently to provide the most accessible documents possible, but some forms and graphs may present accessibility issues due to their complex format. 

Please contact Darlene Bentley or Joe Cifaldi at 860-379-0706 x 1 for assistance with any issues accessing posted documents.

Important Information


Community Information Update 10-23-2018

Committee Update
On Behalf of the Hinsdale School Renovation Committee

Committee Members:

Steven Frazier - Chair, David Carter - Vice Chair, Melissa Bird, Melony Brady-Shanley, Dale Denning, Robert Geiger, Michelle Hintz, Norman Kelly, Nancy O'Dea-Wyrick, Candy Perez, Doug Pfenninger, Michael Ruzbason, Tony Sandonato, Bruce Stratford, Steve Vaill

Document Purpose:

The purpose of this document is to routinely update the Board of Selectman, Board of Education, and greater community on the progress of the Hinsdale School Renovation Committee.

Charge of Committee:

To provide a pre-referendum scope of work and cost structure for the potential renovation of Hinsdale Elementary School.

Resource for information and meeting agendas/minutes are located at: https://www.winchesterschools.org/departments/ hinsdale-renovation-project

Contact Information:

Steven Frazier – Committee Chairman at steven_frazier@sbcglobal.net

Melony Brady-Shanley - Superintendent at melony.brady-shanley@winchesterschools.org


Updated 10/18/2018

On October 11 and 15, 2018, five architecture firms were interviewed regarding pre-referendum services. On Tuesday, October 23, 2018, the committee will meet to potentially select one firm to support the pre-referendum services.

The selected firm will develop a cost structure, a scope of work based on high priority items, begin discussions with the Office of School Construction and Grant Services, and routinely conduct informational meetings with the community regarding the pre-referendum information/progress.

Monthly community information sessions/meetings will be held during the pre-referendum phase – dates, times, and locations to be determined following the selection of a firm.

We expect that a late winter referendum would be appropriate however; this is subject to change based on ensuring we have the project scope, costs, and concerns appropriately planned for and analyzed.

If a referendum is successful then the process for seeking funding/grants officially begins with the State (this is a long and detailed process).

Updated 10/24/2018

On October 23, 2018, the HRSC voted (8-0) to select Silver, Petrucelli, and Associates to support the pre-referendum services for Hinsdale Elementary School. The cost of the pre-referendum services are $38,500 not including if exclusions are needed. The committee will be meeting on Monday, October 29, 2018 at Town Hall in the Blue Room at 6:00 PM to conduct initial planning with the firm. All meetings are open to the public to attend.

HSRC Update 11-13-2018

Over the past two weeks, the architect firm has been visiting Hinsdale regularly to assess the building, the needs, and priority projects. They have also met with various educational members of the Winchester Public Schools to review the floor plans of the current building specifically the location of the main office, security, and programmatic alignment. We expect that in the coming weeks, the architects will be presenting a revised floor plan and information regarding the initial scope of work. 

HSRC Update 11-20-2018

HSRC Update:  November 20, 2018

Last night, the Hinsdale School Renovation Committee met to review initial plans and preliminary solutions. During the meeting, Silver, Petrucelli, and Associates presented a potential floor plan that addresses security and main office location concerns. The floor plan had only slight changes to ensure that costs are kept to a minimum (floor plan will be posted on the website). They also presented their initial observations and recommendation, the full report will be in the meeting minutes for 11/20/2018. They covered exterior building conditions (roof, brick masonry, windows, and exterior doors), interior building conditions (floors and ceilings, painting, casework, interior doors, accessibility upgrades, moisture concerns, Pre-K and K toilet rooms), mechanicals (proposed new heat and air conditioning system and removal of old system, plumbing  systems - boiler, domestic water, water heaters, plumbing fixtures, DWV system, roof drainage, gas service, kitchen automatic grease recovery system), fire systems, electrical (PA system, toilet room aids, occupancy sensors, daylight harvesting controls, electrical panel, fire alarm system, exterior lighting, interior emergency lighting, and existing interior lighting).

The consulting engineer also presented his findings and review of the Hinsdale School Culvert and Flooding (report will be posted on the website). He reviewed the 1987 and 1988 studies on the culvert and met with our Director of Public Works and Winsted School Facilities Department. The 1988 report indicated that the culvert was expanded on Hinsdale Avenue to withstand a 100-year event. But the site is 1.7' below flood elevation requiring the building to be flood-proofed. The current building is not in a FEMA zone. Culvert is in good structural condition. Recommended actions should include: ownership/maintenance responsibilities, development of a flood contingency plan that addresses flood proofing in the event of a predicted flood emergency, provide stormwater detention for any new impervious areas on-site, eliminate unit ventilators in each classroom and fill-in the openings to eliminate potential water infiltration, and provide an easily deployable system to flood-proof the culvert door in the basement.

Please note that meeting minutes will be added to the website as soon as PDF documents are received by Silver, Petrucelli, and Associates.  All documents reviewed at the meeting will be posted.

HSRC Update 12-17-2018

Hinsdale School Renovation Committee Update - On Tuesday, December 17, 2018, the Hinsdale School Renovation Committee met. They discussed three options for a redesign. Option 1 and 2 keep the site layout very similar (see floor plan layout 12 17 2018 on the website). The issue with option 1 and 2 is that water at the 100-year flood level will still be on the grounds surrounding the building. The building in options 1 and 2 will have floodgates installed so that no water even at the 100-year flood stage would enter the building. An alternative would be to also have a relief culvert installed to lessen water on the site at a cost of approximately $1.2 million. Option 3 removes the older section of the building over the culvert, eliminating site water issues and building water issues. This option is more expensive but guarantees the site and building to the 100-year flood stage. This option removes the 16,000 sq. ft. section and moves it to the opposite side of the building. The committee voted (5-0) to investigate option three further and include the state construction office in the conversation regarding the reimbursement rate for this scope of work. The next meeting has not been scheduled as of yet; it will follow the meeting scheduled with the grant office. Detailed meeting minutes and drawings will be posted at https://www.winchesterschools.org/
departments/hinsdale-renovation-project.  Minutes are expected to be posted by the end of the business day on 12 18 2018.

HSRC Update 1-28-2019

Last week on 1/23/19, several members of the committee met with members of the Office of School Construction and Grant Services at the State Department of Connecticut. During this meeting, they questioned us regarding our entire district. Silver, Petrucelli informed them of the two options the committee has been discussing - renovate the existing building or tearing down the original two-story section and renovating the entire building. The state will only consider full reimbursement for the teardown model. The reimbursement rate for the teardown model is the full allowance for Winsted at 70.+%. If the team elects to keep the building as is the reimbursement rate will be 48.3%. The state offered to come out to community meetings and speak to the community regarding reimbursement and their support of the project.

On January 28, 2019, the HSRC met. The core purpose of the meeting was to discuss the reimbursement rate, two potential renovation ideas, and next steps.   The team clarified for everyone that the state would support a 70% reimbursement rate if the 2-story section of the building is taken down. If the building remains as is, the rate would be 48.3%.

The teardown model would support a new 4,400 square foot addition of the east side of the building. No variances would be needed. The new square footage of the building would be 36,984 including the new addition (4,400 sq. ft.). Silver, Petrucelli, and Associates guarantee that this solution will solve the flooding issues with the site. Winsted would get a 70% reimbursement rate for this project. The cost to the town would be approximately $7,792,854. The total project cost would be $12,868,800.

If the building remains as is, the square footage is 45,000. Silver, Petrucelli would install mediation systems to lessen the likelihood of flooding but with no guarantee.  The state would reimburse at the rate of 48.3% but not for the 2-story addition. The cost to the town would be $9,217,245. The total project cost would be $10,585,300.

The committee gave the go-ahead to meet with Silver, Petrucelli, to review the teardown model and align the floor plan to programmatic needs.

Detailed meeting minutes are located at https://www.winchesterschools.org/departments/ hinsdale-renovation-project. We are also in the process of uploading the supporting documents to the website. They should be up shortly.

The next meeting of the HSRC is scheduled for February 13, 2019, at 6 PM in the Blue Room.

HSRC Update 2-13-2019

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019, the HSRC met. The first part of the meeting they reviewed the previous meeting information. Dean Petrucelli then reviewed the revised floor plan based on the enrollment of 269. He then presented the updated enrollment chart for the next eight years that was requested by the state. This enrollment supports an additional 3,000 square feet to the building bringing the size to about 40,000 square foot. This would support additional programming in the building. The new site plan was reviewed with the team; it ensures there will be no flooding or water infiltration issues on the site. All new mechanical and air systems will address any previous issues. There was a motion made to seek a plan using the 40,000 square foot model. That motion passed. The next meeting is February 25, 2019, at 6 PM in the Blue Room. 

Hinsdale Renovation Committee Meetings

HSRC Agendas

July 23, 2018 Agenda

Date:  JULY 23, 2018 @ 6:00 pm





     Packets distributed and list of other documents available to committee

VI   ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES - minutes, posting meetings, etc.  D Pfenninger, Melony Brady-Shanley

VII  CHARGE OF THE COMMITTEE   (with proposed timeline) D Pfenninger
Document describing charge distributed





July 30, 3018 Agenda

Winchester Board of Education
Type of Meeting: Hinsdale Renovation Committee Meeting Agenda
Date:  July 30, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m.
Location:  Town Hall – Blue Room
Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                             Dave Carter, Vice Chair      

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

I.   Call to order

II.  Roll call

III. New Business

a)  Review RFP Draft  

IV.  Adjournment

September 17, 2018 Agenda

Winchester Board of Education
Type of Meeting: Hinsdale Renovation Committee Meeting Agenda - AMENDED
Date:  September 17, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m.
Location:  Town Hall – Blue Room
Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                            Dave Carter, Vice Chair      

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

I.   Call to order

II.  Roll call

III. New Business

a)  Develop Interview Questions

b)   Review Bids

c)    Discussion of the pipe that runs under Hinsdale into the Mad River


September 27, 2018 Agenda

Winchester Board of Education
Type of Meeting: Hinsdale Renovation Committee Meeting Agenda
Date:  September 27, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m.
Location:  Town Hall – Blue Room
Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                             Dave Carter, Vice Chair      

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

I.      Call to order

II.      Roll call

III.      New Business

a)      Review Architect responses and select firms for interview.


October 11, 2018 Agenda

OCTOBER 11, 2018 AT 5:30 PM



A. FRIAR – 5:30 PM


C. QA AND M – 7:30 PM


October 15, 2018 Agenda

OCTOBER 15, 2018 AT 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.



A. Sevigny @ 6:00 p.m.

B. Perkins Eastman @ 7:30 p.m.


October 23, 2018 Agenda

Winchester Board of Education
Type of Meeting: Hinsdale Renovation Committee Meeting Agenda
Date:  October 23, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m.
Location:  Town Hall – Blue Room
Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                             Dave Carter, Vice Chair      

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

I.      Call to order

II.     Roll call

III.    New Business
        a)     Possible selection of pre-referendum selection of Architecture service.


October 29, 2018 Agenda

OCTOBER 29, 2018 AT 6:00 PM

  1. Roll Call
  2. Business
    a) Initial planning meeting with Silver,  Petrucelli, and Associates.
  3. Adjournment

November 20, 2018 Agenda

November 20, 2018, AT 6:00 PM

Meeting Facilitator: Steven Frazier, Chair
                               Dave Carter, Vice Chair      

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

1.      Roll Call

2.      Business
         a)       Update from Design Team
              1)    Update Schedule.
             2)    Meeting minutes & first pass                             floor plan based on programming meeting/goals.
              3)    Facility conditions update based on initial architects/engineer’s field visits.
              4)    Initial site plan options based on civil engineer’s discussion with town engineer.
              5)    Next steps.
3.      Adjournment

December 17, 2018 Agenda

December 17, 2018, AT 6:00 PM

Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                                     Dave Carter, Vice Chair      

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

1.      Roll Call

2.      Business
         a)      Floor plan review
         b)      Site plan options/discussions
         c)      Facility conditions update  
based on architects/engineer’s field visits.
         d)      Opinion of probable construction cost
         e)      Schedule/Next steps.

3.       Adjournment

January 28, 2019 Agenda

JANUARY 28, 2019, AT 6:00 PM

Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                             Dave Carter, Vice Chair      

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

1.      Roll Call
2.      Business – Update from Design Team
a)      Recap of our last meeting
b)      Update on meeting with the State of Ct, School Construction grants on 1/23/19
c)     Space Standards discussion        (including directive from the State)
d)      Floor plan impact & initial concepts
e)      Updated estimates based on   above information
f)       Next steps
h)      Approve invoices           

3.       Adjournment

February 13, 2019 Agenda

Wednesday, February 13, 2019, AT 6:00 PM

Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                             Dave Carter, Vice Chair      

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

1.      Roll Call

2.      Business – Update from Design Team
         a)      Revised floor plan review
         b)      Revised site plan review
         c)      Revised Opinion of probable construction cost review
         d)      Schedule/Next steps.      

3.      Adjournment

HSRC Minutes

July 23, 2018 Minutes

Date: JULY 23, 2018 @ 6:00 pm

I CALL TO ORDER - Doug Pfenninger 6:00 PM

II SWEARING IN OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS (Sheila Sedlack) - Shelia Sedlack performed swearing in for David, Steven F., Tony, Dale, Norman, Steven V., Michael

III ROLL CALL - Doug Pfenninger, Michelle Hintz, Nancy O’Dea-Wyrick, David Carter, Steven Frazier, Tony Sandonato, Dale Denning, Norman Kelly, Steven Vaill, Bruce Stratford, Michael Ruzbasan

IV INTRODUCTIONS AMONG MEMBERS - All members introduced themselves and shared their personal and/or professional experience.

Packets distributed and a list of other documents available to the committee

Each member received a binder that included previously analyzed reports.

VI ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES - minutes, posting meetings, etc. D Pfenninger, Melony Brady-Shanley

VII PUBLIC COMMENT - Steven Sedlack - Thank you to the entire committee and appreciation for the expertise of the building committee.

VIII CHARGE OF THE COMMITTEE (with proposed timeline) D Pfenninger

Document describing charge distributed.  D. Pfenninger describes the historical issues that have faced the district with regards to school closures. He addressed the Receiver closing Hinsdale due to the belief of mold; Receiver did not “turn the building back over to the town.” Town formed a committee to find a way to repurpose Hinsdale. No one was interested in the purchase of the property and demolition would be about $700,000. At no point did the building get returned to the town. BOE has maintained the building since the closure. Receivers encouraged BOE to look at both Batcheller and Hinsdale. CREC was hired to review all documents associated with Hinsdale. The report indicated that Hinsdale would be a better choice for renovation. Ad Hoc Committee made a formal recommendation that we renovate Hinsdale. BOE approved this recommendation. BOS in July 2018 established a Renovation Committee for Hinsdale.

The obligation to provide a sound educational system in the town. Benefits both town and school. Good, clean, up to date building is an important part of the solution. The town has not maintained school buildings in quite some time. With a fairly modest budget, we can create a sound school building at Hinsdale.

Tonight or the next meeting, you will elect your officials.

Review of the charge, and Statement of Need


Melony reviewed the Mystic Air Quality Reports and explained the sequence and process of testing. The committee engaged in conversation regarding Air Quality and new system requirements to ensure routine air quality testing.

Melony reviewed the DRAFT of the Request for Proposals. A few members of the committee volunteered to assist with formally DRAFTING the RFP for consideration at Monday, July 30, 2018 meeting. The committee has determined, they will include energy-saving opportunities in the RFP for investigation.



Chair - Nomination of Chair Steven Fraizer - Unanimous

Vice Chair - Dave Carter - Unanimous


6:00 PM on July 30, 2018 - Blue Room

RFP Development Session - Thursday, July 26, 2018, 4th Floor, 9:00 AM

Friday, July 27, 2018 - Committee Walkthrough of Hinsdale

July 30, 2018 Minutes

Winchester Board of Education
Type of Meeting: Hinsdale Renovation Committee Meeting Minutes
Date:  July 30, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m.
Location:  Town Hall – Blue Room
Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                             Dave Carter, Vice Chair      

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

I.      Call to order – 6:02 PM

II.      Roll call – Melissa B., Nancy OW, Norman K, Tony S, Doug P, Michelle H, Melony BS, Steve V., Steve F. Bob G., Dave C.

III.      New Business

a)      Review RFP Draft  

b)      Mr. Frazier instructed the team to review the document.

c)      All questions that arise during the bid process will be directed to Mr. Frazier.

d)      Discussion took place regarding timing with bid dates and completion goals.

e)      August 10 – 2:30 PM – Walkthrough

f)       Questions Due by Friday, August 31, 2018

g)      September 17th – Next Meeting – Agenda – Develop Interview Questions and Review Bids

h)      September 10th Monday – Bids Due

i)       Monday, September 24 and Tuesday, September 25– Architects to be interviewed

j)       Friday, September 28 – Selection Announcement

k)      Friday, November 16 – Architect Completion

b) Melissa and Bob to research and report out for next meeting on Referendum Timeline.

c) Research must be done regarding the potential permanent closure of the water access door in the basement of Hinsdale.

IV.      Adjournment – 7:21 PM

V.      Next Meeting 

September 17, 2018 Minutes

Winchester Board of Education
Type of Meeting: Hinsdale Renovation Committee Meeting Minutes
Date: September 17, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m.
Location: Town Hall – Blue Room

Meeting Facilitator: Steven Frazier - Chair, Dave Carter - Vice Chair
Invitees: M. Bird, M. Brady-Shanley, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N.
O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

I. Call to order - 6:00 p.m. Carter - Motion, Sandonato 2nd
   Pledge of Allegiance

II. Roll call - Brady-Shanley, O’Dea-Wyrick, Hintz, Carter, Denning, Kelly, Perez, Sandonato, Vaill, Stratford, Bird.

III. Public Comment - Two members were present in the audience, however, did not speak during official public comment but asked questions during the meeting that were addressed.

IV. New Business
a) Review Bids

Nancy distributed the spreadsheet with information about the Cost of Referendum. She reviewed the titles and what each column means. Committee took time to review the summary sheet that Nancy developed. Nancy noted that fewer exclusions were better for purchase. Importance of flood certification was noted.

I. Friar - Need to clarify what the phase 1 services are. Will attend meetings with the school. Need a price associated with their work beyond the initial amount of $45,000.

II. Perkins Eastman - In phase 2 and 3 credit would be given back assuming a successful referendum. Listed all the other consulting firms associated with their work. Their phase 1 work includes facilities assessment, education program development, community forums, and information session. Develop specific assist with Office of School Construction and Grants, Prepare conceptual designs, develop a project schedule, estimate costs and budget, provide town meeting and referendum support.

III. QA and M - Excluded hazmat and environmental testing and geotechnical services. They have a group of support staff to support the project. They also did not specify what services were included in Phase 1. No numerics presented on phase 2 and 3.

V. Sevigny - Exclusions included mailing, and their documents are for their sole use in this process. They did provide a list of consultants; specific information was provided regarding phase 1 proposal. That included: project management, inventory of existing conditions, field measurements, code study, HVAC, bathroom renovations, water drainage, exterior security, structural engineering, roof, solar panels, ADA requirements, construction costs, schematic design report, a community presentation, referendum package.


VI. Silver Petrucelli and Associates - Costs were associated in addition to work in phase 1. Did not specify phase 1 services. They did provide phase 2 and 3 numbers. They have a full staff of project support team members.

VII. Tecton - Exclusions included: Hazmat, geotechnical, environmental, hazardous material, investigation, analysis, demographic projections. Have a team of support members. Did not provide Phase 2 and 3 numbers. Did not include a list of phase 1 services.

b) Develop Interview Questions
The committee needs to forward interview questions to Melony by Wednesday, September 19, 2018. Melony will develop a question sheet and forward to the Chair and Vice Chair for approval. Following the approval, Melony will send out to the six firms. The six firms will have until 12 PM on September 27, 2018, to respond. Interviews with selected firms will be October 4, 2018

c) Next Meeting will be on September 27, 2018, in the Hicks Room at 6 PM.

V. Adjournment - 8:07 PM

September 27, 2018 Minutes

Winchester Board of Education
Type of Meeting: Hinsdale Renovation Committee Meeting Minutes
Date:  September 27, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m.
Location:  Town Hall – Blue Room
Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                             Dave Carter, Vice Chair      

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, D. Carter, and S. Vaill

I. Call to order 

II. Roll call - M. Brady-Shanley, D. Denning, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, S. Vaill, S. Carter

III. Public Comment - No public comment

IV. New Business

a)  Review Bids - Committee took 10 minutes to review the submitted bid questions.

S. Carter shared his concerns that he thought the bids did not have a final number. Clarity was provided by the committee to explain the purpose of this process (phase 1) in preparation for a referendum with at cost and scope of work that would most accurately reflect the bottom line.

Frazier - stated that the purpose is to come up with a cost estimate to renovate Hinsdale. The committee felt the architects did answer the clarifying questions.

Took an additional 5 minutes to review

Tecton - Committee felt Tecton did not present a strong support plan regarding hydrology and remediation. Dismissed from process

Motion made by Frazier - Carter - 1st, Sandonato 2nd - 8-0

QA and M - Will be invited for an interview

Silver, Petrucelli, and Associates - Will be invited for an interview

Friar - Will be invited for an interview

Perkins Eastman - Will be invited for an interview

Sevigny - Will be invited for an interview

b)  Develop Interview Questions - October 4, 2018, at 6 PM

Interviews will be held on: October 11, 2018 - 5:30 PM Friar, 6:30 PM Perkins Eastman, 7:30 PM QA and M

October 15, 2018 - 6:00 PM Sevigny and 7:00 PM Silver

V. Adjournment - 7:00 PM

October 11, 2018 Minutes

Winchester Board of Education
Type of Meeting: Hinsdale Renovation Committee Meeting Minutes
Date:  October 11, 2018 @ 5:30 p.m.
Location:  Town Hall – Blue Room

Meeting Facilitators:  Steven Frazier - Chair, Dave Carter - Vice Chair     

Committee Members: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, D. Carter, and S. Vaill


I. Call to order at 5:30 PM

II. Roll call - M. Brady-Shanley, N. O’Dea-Wyrick, M. Bird, D. Denning, D. Carter, M. Ruzbason, S. Frazier, D. Pfenninger, N. Kelly, T. Sandonato,

III. New Business

The Interview Process was read before all interview was started.

  1. 5:30 PM - Friar Interview/Presentation
    1. Exterior Updates - Theme of “clock building” not expanding the square footage. Shared renderings of exterior options.
    2. Construction Estimate Approach - All “yellow” will not be reimbursed by the state. “White” believed to be reimbursed through the state. Looked at an apply price based on recent construction bids, apply soft costs, grants, etc.
    3. Site Analysis - Flood Plain Analysis - A survey has been completed from the Mad River to Hinsdale. Stone lined tunnels, large chambers, Preliminary analysis of hydrology has been done. Suggesting a pre-referendum flood management strategy. Work with the state before the referendum. This firm feels this is imperative to this process. Study alternative solutions to control water flow. This would be in partnership with DEEP and School Construction. Grant funding through FEMA will be investigated.
    4. Traffic Flow - Bus Drop-off and Pickup at Main School Entrance. Move the playground to the side of the building and move parking into the field. This will also play into the flood proofing process.
    5. Mechanical Engineers - Energy efficient, looking at perimeter radiation and Variable Air Volume and reheat boxes. Investigate all systems.
    6. Community Outreach - Work with parents/leaders, community events, educate the community, develop a message, polling, building consensus.
    7. OSCGR - input begins early, site analysis/design, renovation cost analysis - All completed pre-referendum.
    8. Single bond vs. Multiple projects - Analyzed to see which way will save us more money in reimbursable costs.
    9. Referendum - complete conceptual design, finalize the budget, fine-tune marketing material, align message.
    10. Client Portal - to access for school leaders and community.
    11. Why Friar - 40 years of experience, focused on Connecticut Schools, recent referendum success. 1.5 million sq. ft. of design work - 98% have been public schools.
    12. Directly Answered the questions
      1. Confident to bring in cost estimate within 10%.
      2. Engineering/construction support - have experience in this particular area.
      3. Value engineering - After the referendum, will provide alternate projects/materials. Cost reduction - through the way of alternative options. Cost estimator is experienced and accurate. June 30, 2019 application to the OSCGR (priority project).
  2. 6:30 PM - Perkins Eastman Interview/Presentation
    1. The statement was read to the committee.
    2. The firm focuses on school design. In the past 15 years, completed 22 elementary schools in excess of 15 billion. Shared local projects that have been completed. The firm has written several white papers and books on school design and concepts.
    3. Introductions - Perkins Eastman team was introduced.
    4. Project Understanding - Shared main concerns with the site and what the team would like to see addressed. Establish a solution to address remediation needs. Mechanical systems will be addressed (ventilation and air condition). Reviewed the available area for construction. Mechanical and building upgrades.
    5. Visioning Process - Core Educational Leadership Team, design working group, and community groups.  Next move into goals and best practices, design and guiding principle become an educational specification. They shared “who” we are designing for.
    6. Safe, secure, and scaled - scale studies, welcoming entries, identity, interactive walls, numbered stairs, talking tubes, natural light, reflection, imagination, exploration, manipulation, experimentation. Will be provided with an educational program and space summary.
    7. OSGR - starting the conversation early and how we can get the most reimbursed costs.
    8. Following the development of the Educational Specification - Ensuring that students have inspiring spaces for scale, strength, cognitive, and problem-solving. Students would have access to neighborhoods in the school building, connections to the outdoors, security, building zones in classrooms. In 1st and 2nd grade, lockers would be in the hallway; students will foster pride, teamwork, collaboration, and manipulation in the space. All spaces would be “flexible.”
    9. Neighborhood Context - Site design, neighborhood “look” - church, Main Street, residential housing, commercial. Has a constrained space.
    10. Traffic Flow - will be addressed through a circulation analysis. Defining campus edges, exterior security would be addressed, accessibility would be addressed, and the physical condition would be addressed. Drainage and stream remediation.
    11. Remediation - Options would include - reroute culvert, remove the second floor of the building and open a corridor between the two. Drainage issues would be addressed in this model. Culvert - close the door off and waterproof the area. Move drainage away from the curb line. Flooding has two issue
    12. Energy Usage - looking at getting the energy costs to 1.21 per square foot
    13. Mold - Humidity causes mold, 30-50% humidity is the goal, looking into an ultraviolet light and cooling coils.
    14. Schedule and Cost - Development meetings begin immediately with the state. Estimated completion of January 2021. ED049 submission before June 2019. Estimating construction to be about 12 months.
    15. Budget - Never had a project exceed a proposed budget within 1%. Never missed a project opening date.
    16. Community Outreach - Did not present, ran out of time
  1. 7:30 PM - QA & M Interview/Presentation
    1. The interview process was read to the team.
    2. Introduction of team members
    3. 30 years working with K 12 schools. As a team, they have worked together for 15 years on more than 30 different projects. Full-service firm 34 full-time employees, specialized in academic and elementary projects, and some educators on staff. Transparent approach to the process - building committee, town management, WBOE, the flow of information would be shared with all stakeholders. Weekly meetings would be required.
    4. OSCGR - work collaboratively with state, work with cost buckets, the goal would be the highest reimbursement possible. Allowable square footage would be 30,132 sq. ft. Entertain - Renovate as New. There is three different ways to look at reimbursement - guidelines (formula for sq. ft), grant application, law.
    5. Approach to the project - Address site issues (drainage, parking, circulation), Hazmat, environmental, security, ADA, HVAC, Building systems, technology, roof, finishes, etc. Key issues are flooding management, drainage, parking, student drop off, site accessibility, neighboring properties. Presented a drainage map that effects Hinsdale. Looked at liabilities to the building - Need to ensure that the building is the right size for the enrollment. Address Hazmat preconstruction. One idea would be to remove the older section of the building. Add a new section of the building on the right side. One level building that would not need an elevator.
    6. Mechanical - Identify system options, possible reuse of current systems, energy efficient, need to build system to control humidity coming into the building.
    7. Presented renderings.
    8. Budget Management - Cost estimate professional, within 10% of the estimate. The Educational Specification is part of the scope of work. Looking at renovating as new vs. alteration project costs.
    9. Cost Reductions - Ensure project comes in on budget. Work with the building committee on cost estimate, cost budgeting, and cost control.
    10. Referendum Support - Communication, establish a vision, community engagement, informational campaign, deliver the project to approval. Inclusive, transparent, compelling, easily understood, etc. Material support for visioning.
    11. Schedule - QA & M - they can meet their schedule.

IV. Adjournment at 8:55 PM

October 15, 2018 Minutes

OCTOBER 15, 2018 AT 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Opened at 6:05 PM

1. ROLL CALL - Tony S., David F. Melony B.S., Doug P., Michelle H., David C, Nancy O, Steve V., Dale D., Norman K.


A. Sevigny @ 6:00 p.m.

  1. One presenter tonight. The team has prepared a package to share tonight. Established in 1986. Philosophy to act as the client’s advocate. A team approach to design. 32 years in business. The team will include Sevigny, mechanical, landscape, structural, construction estimator, civil engineering. Previous projects - Kent Center School Project, Housatonic Valley Regional High School, Warner Theatre Renovations all projects of Sevigny Architects.
  2. Project Approach - Three Phases - Phase 1 - To get approvals and referendum. Phase 2 - Get to construction, Phase 3 - Construction Administration to completion (We are only considering Phase 1 at this point).
  3. Process - New roof/electrical/plumbing and air conditioning, ADA Compliance, New Security, New Site Improvement (pacing, drainage, bus drop off and pick up), New Interior Finishes, New Exterior Entrance Identity. Six main areas to address in the project.
  4. The scope of Work - Accessibility, Elevator (exterior, not necessary for ADA), Interior Finishes (painting of existing, ceiling tiles, accent colors), Cabinet Finishes (configuration), Signage (wayfinding throughout the building), Emergency Generator (cost but necessary, need to find an appropriate location)
  5. Challenges - Site Surface Drainage (waterproof boiler room) need to address the pitch of the roadway, new catch basins, security, air conditioning (not just ducted, piped, will need to address ceiling height), Solar panels (structural capacity may need to be addressed)
  6. Response to questions - A2 survey needed, will present at community meetings, etc.
  7. Project Cost Estimate will guarantee within 10%+-.
  8. Engineering and Construction Support Team will be in place
  9. Cost Reduction Opportunities - Bring to the building committee alternatives, recommendations, and will follow the direction of the building committee.
  10. Reductions/Efficiencies - Alternatives will be presented to the committee.
  11. Monitor Costs/Budget - Project cost associated with the referendum
  12. Time and Budget - Can commence work immediately with Sevigny
  13. Why Sevigny - Trust, confidence, listen, and solve concerns.
  14. Q and A - Solar potential to supplement electric (but there is a significant weight load that would need to be addressed with the roof). Consider Geothermal Wells rather than solar.

B.  Silver Petrucelli @ 7:00 p.m.

  1. 47 architects, six engineers, designers, all in-house work, no subcontractors. Don Smith will be the civil engineer on the project.
  2. In-House Services - Architecture, electrical, plumbing, security, code work, etc.
  3. Previously worked on Hinsdale - gym and cafe floor issues, completed the roof project at Pearson (have done six projects at Pearson).
  4. Completed jobs - Fairfield (with students occupied), Stratfield Elementary School, Chatfield-LoPresti School, Crystal Lake School, Gallup Hill Elementary School, Enfield High School
  5. Programming design work would be part of the scope - color and finish selection completed by committee.
  6. Engineering - review current systems, the capacity of utilities, develop a baseline. MEP options, specialized ventilation. Review of code. LEED knowledge to integrate green concepts.
  7. State reimbursement process and analysis. We will need to meet high-performance codes for SDE reimbursement. Energy models will be completed.
  8. Options - review different heating, cooling, and energy systems.
  9. Project Understanding - Site Improvements (parking, walking, and drainage), Site Access (busses, emergency, and parent pick up/drop off), Building Improvements - security, communication, roof, paint, HVAC improvement (boilers, fuel tank removal, backup generator), Hazardous materials, etc.
  10. Design concepts - integrated learning, clusters, pods, extended learning areas, STEAM, natural light, etc.
  11. Estimating will be done in-house. Usually with 2-7% accurate. The average of all projects has come in at .8% of the original bid. 
  12. Value Engineering - budget review, and then pick what makes the most for your project.


Next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 23, 2018, at 6 PM in the Blue Room at Town Hall.

October 23, 2018 Minutes

Winchester Board of Education
Type of Meeting: Hinsdale Renovation Committee Meeting Minutes
Date:  October 23, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m.
Location:  Town Hall – Blue Room
Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                                Dave Carter, Vice Chair      

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

I.         Call to order – 6:04 PM

II.         Roll Call - M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, D.   Pfenninger, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, D. Carter, M. Ruzbason, D. Denning, and S. Vaill

III.       New Business
    1)     Possible selection of pre-referendum selection of Architecture service.

    2)     Michelle Hintz made a motion to rate the top firms – Tony Sandonato 2nd.    

 Silver Petrucelli and Associates, and QA & M were the top two

Committee decided there was no need to consider a third firm. 

QA and M

  • Critical Path
  • Could not meet current schedule
  • Relocation – Project Costs
  • Exclusions are a concern – HAZMAT Testing, Environmental, Geotechnical
  • Concerned about square footage allowance and removing part of the building as a solution.
  • Student’s involvement in the process and decision-making.
  • Within 10% of costs historically.
  • Addressed parking and traffic patterns.
  • More focused on the program versus the scope of work.

Silver Petrucelli

  • All services in-house. 47 Engineers
  • Proof of final costs come in between 2-7% of actual costs.
  • They provided their average square foot cost.
  • Solution to address smaller square footage allowance for grants.
  • History of completing projects in town.
  • Connection to town/presence in the community.
  • Addressed parking and traffic patterns.
  • Will work within the parameters of the project funds.
  • Silver had a strong presentation.
  • Strong track record, 30 projects of the state, 80% of the work in schools. High-performance grants experience.
  • Cost focused presentation.

3)  Motion made by David Carter to perform a vote for Silver Petrucelli and Associates for the Hinsdale Pre-Referendum Services. 2nd Motion Michelle Hintz

Yes – 8, No – 0, Abstain – 0

4. Friendly Amendment to the motion to confirm the scope and costs that our vote is contingent upon verification of scope and cost ($38,500). Amendment was made by Michelle Hintz, 2nd David Carter – 8-0 approved. Melony Brady-Shanley following the meeting confirmed the price in the presence of Doug Pfenninger, Michelle Hintz, and Nancy O’Dea-Wyrick.

5. Next meeting date will be Monday, October 29, 2018, at 6:00 PM.

IV. Adjournment at 7:05 PM

October 29, 2018 Minutes

OCTOBER 29, 2018 AT 6:00 PM

Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                                Dave Carter, Vice Chair     

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

  1. Roll Call at 6:00 PM
    Present: S., Frazier, S. Vaill, M. Brady-Shanley, T. Sandonato, M. Ruzbason, N. O’Dea-Wyrick, D. Carter, N. Kelly, M. Bird, D. Pfenninger, B. Stratford, D. Denning, and M. Hintz
  2. Public Comment – None
  3. Business
    Initial planning meeting with Silver, Petrucelli, and Associates

     a.  Introduction - Dean Petrucelli - Project       Manager, Bill Silver - Principal

     b. Opening goal would be August 2020

     c. Schedule of work was presented to the       group for consideration

     d. Program team needs to be developed.         Committee decided that Melony and               Nancy will be the educational team to             determine the programmatic needs of the       building. Building principal will also be             involved in this meeting along with select         staff members.

     e.  Informal conversations will take place         with the state grant office routinely                   throughout the process.

    f.  Architects will develop multiple                     scenarios and present to the team. The           team will then have to decide on options         and move toward a selected scenario. 

4. Scheduling of next meeting November 20, 2018, at 6 PM Blue Room of Town Hall

5.  Adjournment at 7:02 PM 

November 20, 2018 Minutes

November 20, 2018, AT 6:00 PM

Meeting Facilitator: Steven Frazier, Chair
                               Dave Carter, Vice Chair     

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

1.      Roll Call at M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, M. Hintz, Steve Frazier,  N. O’Dea, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, Steve Frazier, Dave Carter, N. Kelley, D. Denning, and S. Vaill

Order at 6:01 PM


2.      Public Comment

John Wiarda - 16 Superior Street Winsted, CT
Chairman of the Energy Commission for Winsted. Look at different energy planning opportunities schools and net-zero refurbishment. Cost is involved. The end product is lower due to energy savings. Flooring that inhibits mold like in a surgery room. Energy efficient lighting, geothermal heating/cooling. Electric charging stations for the vehicle. White Plains New York is adding electric school buses. They are more expensive but save energy. Utility company did provide some of the grant monies.

3.      Business - Audience and committee members encouraged to ask questions throughout the presentation.
       a)       Update from Design Team - Over the last two weeks, met with the superintendent, business office, and principal.
       1)    Update Schedule - Schedule remains on target.
        2)    Meeting minutes & first pass floor plan based on programming meeting/goals.

The floor plan tonight represents base/initial information and can be altered at any point due to function/cost/etc. All physical walls have been verified in the building. All specialty engineers have begun their facility analysis. Tonight, we will hand out preliminary findings. We are not done updating our fact-finding; this process will continue. This is the first reiteration of the floor plan, and certainly not the last. Not proposing significant alterations to the existing structure equals economic savings. They suggested moving the main office to the new main entrance of the building, and elevator access to the second floor (exterior to the building). ADA requires elevator access to all areas of the building to ensure equal accommodations. An elevator is recommended to be outside the building to keep costs in check. Outside elevators tend to be less expensive. No changes to the second floor of the building, structurally or design-wise. Adult offices have been strategically placed to assist with monitoring entrances and exits to the building. Once the estimating happens we can reconfigure the plans to ensure value engineering. Steven Frazier asked if anyone had questions regarding the plans.

Michelle H. - Question - Are all programmatic needs being met in this design. What are we getting extra?

Answer - All current programming is being accommodated in the current proposal. The design does allow for better operation/programmatic design given the layout of the proposal.

Steve F. - Question - What conversations with the state have taken place regarding the overage of square footage?

Answer - The overage of square footage is being investigated by the State and architects will be in communication at our next meeting. They look for the overage to be aligned with programmatic needs. We will work to prepare a statement of justification for space overage.

Audience Member - Question - Going forward there will be options for different design options?

Answer - Yes, as a requirement of the grant office, multiple options will need to be considered including to renovate as new, new construction, and project-based.

      3)    Facility conditions update based on initial architects/engineer’s field visits.

Notes provided by the architecture firm. See document at end of minutes.

      4)    Initial site plan options based on civil engineer’s discussion with town engineer.

Donald Smith presented the civil plan options. New bus drop off entrance in the main entry, a parent pick up and drop off loop would be developed. New play area in front of building for Pre-K and K. Currently play structure would remain in same space but updated. Reviewed the Hinsdale School Culvert and Flooding information (see PDF report from Donald W. Smith, Jr., P.E. Consulting Engineer).

      5)    Next steps. Finalize findings and begin estimate costs.

Comment - Norman Kelly - General concern regarding flooding and mold remediation plan is a requirement of the project, and wanted to ensure that this is non-negotiable in the site plan. Committee agreed with this request and acknowledged that this is a required element.

4.      Adjournment at 8:26 PM


Winsted Hinsdale School Architectural Observations & Recommendations

Provided by Silver, Petrucelli, and Associates on 11/20/2018

Exterior Building Conditions:

Roof: All roofs, on both first and second floor, are older and near the end of their useful lives.  Full replacement is recommended.  Membranes, flashings, insulation and stone ballast should be removed back to the structural deck.  Pitch of roof, drainage calculations and insulation levels will be reviewed designed to meet current codes.

Brick masonry:  Overall, the exterior masonry is in fair to good condition.  There are several areas where patching and replacement of broken masonry units will be needed.  Staining, mildew and minor areas of mold were observed on the exterior.  It is recommended to acid wash the exterior masonry as well as replace all soft joints, control and expansion joints.  The new entrance soffit is in poor condition and should be renovated.

Windows: Overall, the existing windows are in fair to poor condition.  They are 30 years old and with repairs could last another 10 or so.  Some of the frames, operable and fixed, are deteriorated and physically falling apart.  The glazing appears sound, with only minor replacement of failing insulated units.  Caulking around all windows should be removed and replaced.  To achieve security upgrades for the windows the choices are to add a security film or consider replacing the windows for a long-term solution.  It was noted that the character of the gym windows is important to the image and feel of the school.  If considered for replacement, the appearance of those windows would be maintained as closely as possible to the existing.    

Exterior doors:  Some of the exterior doors and frames are deteriorating and require replacement, others may require hardware upgrades and refinishing/painting.  All exterior doors will be reviewed for accessibility, with no steps or approach problems.

Interior Building Conditions:

Floors and ceilings: The existing ceiling tiles are sagging significantly due to moisture and/or humidity within the building and should be replaced.  There may be areas which can be reused on a room by room basis.  Upgrades to ceilings at both former and new lobbies are being considered.  This will also help accommodate above ceiling utility work.  Floors are in fair to poor condition.  Some flooring is deteriorating and needs to be replaced, other areas could be replaced to help brighten up the spaces.  The wood floor in the gym is in need of repair and refinishing.  Due to moisture/humidity concerns, it is recommended to replace the floor with a synthetic, poured sports floor.

Painting:  The interior of the building should be considered for a full repainting to freshen the spaces.

Casework:  The existing casework is generally in poor condition with significant damage.  Much of the existing casework does not meet current accessibility standards.  It is recommended to replace, rather than try to reuse or repair the existing casework.

Interior doors:  The doors are in fair to poor condition.  Some of the doors, exact quantity to be determined, can continue to be used with upgrades to hardware.  The large movable partition separating the gym and cafeteria needs to be replaced.  A new motorized partition has been requested.

Accessibility Upgrades:  Elevator, etc:  Should essential programs be located on the second floor of the building, it would require elevator access.  An elevator could be added to the interior or exterior of the building, depending on the best practical location for the school.  The stage lift will be reviewed for repair or upgrade if required.  Several of the interior doors do not have code compliant access space or approach on the push or pull sides.  Reconfiguration of walls or adding automatic openers where required would be recommended.  The nurse’s toilet room is not accessible, requiring a full redesign.  The kitchen workspaces and equipment will require a full accessibility assessment.

Moisture concerns:  The building has experienced past moisture related and flooding problems due to the culverted stream under the building.  These conditions will be reviewed further by the design team in coordination with the civil engineer.  Options will be formulated to mitigate or reduce the likelihood of future problems.

Addition of K/pre-K toilet rooms:  One of the program additions to the existing floor plan is dedicated and or shared toilet rooms for the K and pre-K rooms.

Winchester Hinsdale School Electrical observations                                                       11/9/18

  • Classroom PA system needs to be replaced. In the classrooms, the existing equipment was damaged or was missing completely. The clock/speaker units appear to be in good shape and the Simplex Time Control Center panel is located in the Main Office.
  • Toilet Room Call for Aid systems will need to be installed in single toilet rooms. Only two toilet rooms currently have a system and both toilet rooms were missing the corridor light/buzzer units.
  • Occupancy sensors will need to be installed in the classrooms in the old portion of the school. The new classrooms have occupancy sensors already.
  • Daylight harvesting controls for all classrooms will be required. Currently, the row of lights closest to the windows is on a separate switch from the other two rows.
  • Electrical panel infrastructure will need to be upgraded. With the exception of the Kitchen panel, the panels throughout the building are in fair condition at best and should be replaced with new. There are two panels that are old and in poor condition with one panel having exposed lugs. The main 600A building switch located in the Basement Boiler Room should be replaced. Only one utility meter was observed. It is assumed that the distribution panels in the new addition are fed from the equipment in the Boiler Room.
  • Fire Alarm system is a combination of a zoned and an addressable system. The systems are also by two separate manufacturers (Simplex (zoned) and FireLites (addressable)). Areas of the school are lacking protection and there are corridors that are non-compliant with horn/strobe coverage being within 15 from the end of the corridor. Classrooms and Toilet Rooms do not have notification devices. The existing control panels are located in the Vestibule by the Gymnasium. If the new main entrance for the school is going to be the Vestibule in the 1988 addition, the control panels should be relocated to that location.  All wiring will need to be extended or replaced with new from the new location.
  • Exterior site lighting is sparse. There are pole mounted light fixtures at the 1988 Vestibule entrance and in the East parking area that only serve that area. The fixtures have been retrofit with replacement corncob LED lamps that are not specifically designed for the performance of the fixtures. The Vestibule entries have inefficient recessed PAR lamp downlights that illuminate the area in front of the doors and there is no building mounted lighting in those areas that illuminate the sidewalk or driveway areas. One large HID floodlight is mounted at the top corner of the existing building and lights the parking area between the two sections. There are HID wallpacks that light the areas by the Gymnasium and the back of the Kitchen area. There is no building lighting anywhere else on the building. Emergency egress lighting was not observed at any of the exterior exit doors.
  • Interior emergency lighting will need to be replaced throughout. The battery operated ceiling mounted units are old and inefficient and the batteries could most likely have reached the end of useful life. Numerous units were damaged and were hanging from the ceilings. The units were not tested to see if they were operational.
  • Existing interior lighting was mostly T8 fluorescent lamps in recessed fixtures; 2x4, 3 lamp fixtures in the Offices and Media, 1x4, 2 lamp pendant mounted wraparound fixtures in the classrooms and 1x4, 2 lamp recessed fixtures along the walls in the corridors. It is our understanding that the interior lighting will be replaced completely by the utility company with more energy efficient LED light fixtures and should not be considered as part of this report.

Winsted Hinsdale Plumbing Observations & Recommendations

Basement Boiler Room: Due to damp conditions in the boiler room, corrosion is visible on metallic piping and equipment.  Basement boiler room finish floor is in an area prone to flooding due to its elevation in comparison to a large storm culvert located under the building.  It is recommended to locate all equipment above the anticipated flood level elevation.  A sump pump in the basement boiler room was not observed operating but should be replaced based on visible condition.

Domestic Water:  A 3” domestic water service with pressure reducing valve is provided and is adequately sized to handle the building’s water demands.  Main shut off valves should be cycled to determine proper operation.  Backflow preventers, which protect against cross contamination between the municipal water system and the building’s devices, have been provided on all required equipment (boilers, kitchen equipment, etc.), additionally on Water Heater #1, which technically is not required by code.  Portions of the existing supply piping were likely joined with lead solder based on the age of the building and past renovations.  The water supply should be tested for lead content and if found to be unacceptably high action will be required.  Mandatory flushing of the lines each day may be permitted to reduce levels of lead, but replacement of piping would be more desirable. 

Water heater #1: (in basement boiler room) non-condensing, gas fired, 100-gallon capacity water heater is adequate for the anticipated demand, installed in 2008 and is in fair serviceable condition, currently set to deliver 120 deg F hot water, with a 5-7 year life expectancy.  Hot water recirculation pump and aquastat are in fair operating condition, 3-5 year life expectancy.  System will require a new NSF 61  compliant 1017 Thermostatic Mixing Valve (TMV) . 

Water heater #2:  (in mechanical room) non-condensing, gas fired, 80-gallon capacity, which is adequate for the anticipated demand, installed in 2009 and is in good serviceable condition, currently set to deliver 150 deg F hot water, with a 10 year life expectancy.  Hot water recirculation pump is in poor operating condition and was observed leaking, replacement is recommended immediately.  Currently the system is not provided with a thermostatic mixing valve, a new NSF 61 compliant 1017 thermostatic mixing valve is required to prevent the delivery of water capable of scalding the end user.

It is recommended to store hot water at 140 deg F (to avoid the growth of Legionella), then to prevent the delivery of scalding water distribute 120 deg F hot water to all plumbing fixtures via 1017 TMV throughout the building, all handwashing lavatories / sink’s hot water temperature shall be limited to 85 – 110 deg F via 1070 TMV per code.

Plumbing Fixtures: Fixtures in the original building consisting of floor mounted water closets are operational but should be replaced with compliant ADA and low flow/water saving types.   Existing floor mounted urinals shall be replaced with wall hung type with partitions per code.   Fixtures in the addition are comparatively modern consisting of wall hung urinals and water closets.  All urinals and water closets are commercial grade flush valve type.  Some bathrooms are provided with non-ADA compliant wash stations, these should be replaced.  All lavatories shall be provided with ADA compliant insulation on drain and supply lines per code and are required to have provisions to limit hot water delivery temperature between 80 to 110 deg F via 1070 thermostatic mixing valve.  Each classroom is provided with a sink and drinking fountain.

DWV system:  The building is provided with a gravity sanitary system which drains to the municipal sewer system.  All vents terminate to atmosphere accordingly.

Roof drainage:  Primary roof drains are provided on flat roofs and should be regularly cleared of debris as a precaution.  Secondary or emergency roof drainage is provided in some areas but was not apparent in other areas.  Means of secondary roof drainage should be provided to comply with code and to ensure the roof’s structural integrity is intact in the event of excessive ponding or water accumulation caused by primary drain obstructions.  The culvert which has most likely been provided to act as a buffer for the Mad River’s 100-year flood plain level has now become a source of humidity and water / infiltration and has caused basement flooding in the past.  All storm drains in the addition are routed to the municipal storm system via gravity while storm in the original building appears to be routed to the culvert. 

Gas service: A 2 PSI gas service and meter assembly is provided, the current meter is rated at 5,000 CFH while building demand is approximately 6,250 CFH, this is adequately sized after considering load diversity.  It is additionally beneficial to have a 2 PSI service in the event new or additional gas fired equipment will be installed, at which point a new meter assembly rated at a higher capacity maybe required.

Kitchen: Two Automatic Grease Recovery Units (AGRU) have been provided to serve grease producing equipment (3 bay sink & dish washer) per code.  It is recommended to maintain AGRU’s per manufacturer’s requirements.  Point of use thermostatic mixing valves have been provided on all hand washing sinks per code.  All prep sinks spill to floor sinks with air gaps accordingly.  Gas appliances located under the range hood are provided with a remote emergency gas shut off system and automatic chemical fire suppression system.

Winsted Hinsdale Mechanical Observations & Recommendations


  • Steam boiler is serving the original portion of the school
  • She rooms are served are served with a combination of unit ventilators with baseboard radiation
  • No steam boiler chemical treatment was seen in this boiler room. The school has 2 boiler rooms.
  • Boiler room #2 is a hot water boiler that delivers hot water to the combination of unit ventilators with baseboard radiation.
  • No boiler water chemical treatment was seen in this boiler room as well.
  • The heating in the rooms, that are hot water, are controlled by individual thermostats that are mounted on the wall.
  • The roof mounted exhaust fans, as well has the existing fan room fans on the roof, are past their service life and need to be replaced.
  • Some toilet rooms do not have transfer air ducts.
  • No central Building Management Control System.  Control system is the pneumatic control type. System is old, antiquated and very difficult to get parts and not supported by anyone.

Proposed System

  • Remove all the existing mechanical systems in its entirety.
  • Provide new Rooftop units that are gas fired with DX cooling and hot gas re-heat, 100% economizer, VFD drives. Hot gas re-heat is used for humidity control.
  • Provide shut-off VAV boxes with dedicated controls in all interior spaces.
  • Provide fan power VAV boxes with electric re-heat for all rooms that have an outside exposure including the roof.
  • Provide dedicated units for the cafeteria areas that will see various usage.
  • Provide an Energy Management System (EMS) provides a building owner with the ability to monitor, control, and adjust all HVAC (along with plumbing and electrical if desired) systems from a central location.  An operator workstation consisting of a personal computer and printer can be located  in the building, and this station can be accessed remotely via the internet.  The building owner can set occupancy schedules, adjust set points, and monitor trouble/alarm conditions in an efficient manner with this tool.  Features such as night setback, holiday scheduling and weekend scheduling will be included to allow the system to minimize energy expenditure during unoccupied periods.  An alarm feature will be added which can remotely notify facilities staff of any pre-determined, alarm conditions.

December 17, 2018 Minutes

December 17, 2018, AT 6:00 PM

Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                       Dave Carter, Vice Chair     

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

1.      Roll Call - N. O’Dea-Wyrick, M. Brady-Shanley, S. Frazier, R. Field, D. Pfenninger, R. Geiger, S. Vaill, C. Perez, N. Kelly, D. Carter, B. Stratford, D. Denning

2. Public Comment - C. Perez request that meetings not be held on the Monday’s that BOS meet.

3.      Business
         a)      Floor plan review
         b)      Site plan options/discussions

Donald Smith, Civil Engineer, presented three site plans (copies presented at the meeting)

1.      Option 1 - Limited Build - This option does not increase impervious surfaces on the site.

2.      Option 2 - Limited Build - Relocation of the playground to further into the field, 16 additional parking spaces, a small amount of impervious surface added to the site. Increasing impervious area requires that the additional runoff is mediated. Cannot exceed pre-runoff amount.

3.      Option 3 - Removal of 16,000 sq ft. of the old building. This would open up the stream with a 2:1 slope on the sides with 25 feet of embankment. It would support ten additional parking spaces on the Spencer Street side. Site improvements would be made to remediate flooding to address a choke point. There would also be a need to insert a headwall. Water would not back up onto the site, and it would remove all water issues up to a 100-year flood. An additional section would be added to the other side of the building. The new staircase would remain with an overlook and viewing into the water core. In the new building area, a variance would be needed to fully replace the 16,000 sq. ft. If you build smaller, you may not need the variance. A meeting with the state would need to be had ASAP to determine reimbursement for this particular option. 

With Option 1 or 2, the flood level does not support runoff preventing the site from flooding. Option 3 does prevent the site from flooding. At 1.7 feet, the building will then overflow onto the street area.

Mr. Smith presented a relief culvert option. The choke point that previously caused issues was addressed in 1987.  750’ of 48” pipe would be installed as a relief culvert. A right of way may need to be obtained if it enters other properties. This would be approximately 1.2 million. This does not remove the stream from under the school.

David Carter inquired about why Pearson was not expanded? Candy Perez commented Committee at the BOS level, the viability of Hinsdale of a project. Candy Perez, Pearson expansion would most certainly increase taxes. Batcheller and Hinsdale were considered due to the financial benefits. Candy Perez, said that elementary schools need work, no major work has been done since the 1980’s they need to be updated no matter what building you talk about. David Carter commented back regarding the importance of education for new families.

The reimbursement rate for Winchester is 70% need clarity from the state on how this project would be reimbursed at the state level. Off-sight improvement is not typically approved by the State.  However, the firm would seek approval due to the unique situation of this site.

Options 1 and 2 manage the flood issues, option 3 does remedy the flooding issue. The site will be under water, but the building would not be. Steve Vaill commented that he likes option 3.

Paul then reviewed the floor plan. No room layouts changed, one thing that did change is in renovating the building, the boiler room on the lower level needs to be moved to be moved to rooftop - mechanicals and sprinkler. The basement boiler rooms would be abandoned. No changes have been made from the previous discussion except for moving the mechanicals to the surface and roof. The roof is structurally able to handle the new weight. Solar could also be accommodated in the weight (this is not part of the scope of the job).

Candy is asking to investigate making the gymnasium able to accommodate recreation programming. 

Bruce Stratford - Asked if the roof units provide proper ventilation, extensive dehumidification system would be added, this would be added to the waterproofing efforts, with sensors, Ozone would be also used.

Dean talked about being confident that his firm can mitigate the moisture, and solve all the infiltration issues to handle the moisture. On Option 1 and 2 we can keep this building within an acceptable level, we cannot keep the site dry in a 100-year event.

To keep the building dry, fill the masonry opening, doorways would be installed with floodgates. Doors would have gaskets.

         c)      Facility conditions update based on architects/engineer’s field visits.

         d)      The opinion of probable construction cost

Paul presented the financials for Option 1 and 2 - The costs are broken down by construction division. There is a subtotal for costs and then an amount that would be reimbursable by the state. 12% contingency is added. Totaling 10,287,200 and the reimbursable amount would be $3,796,000. The state tells you the final reimbursement value at the end of the project during the final audit (usually 2-3 years following student entrance to the building/completion). Dean recommended a meeting with the state with an option to investigate further.

Option 3 would cost $21 million including a 16,000 sq ft addition and renovation of the remaining facility. We would need to investigate a reimbursement rate with the state.         

e)      Schedule/Next steps.

Motion made by Steve Carter to investigate option 3 for a preparation meeting. 2nd by Steve Vail. Discussion by Doug Pfenninger clarity regarding floodgates, they simply get pulled up, and the outside sight would need cleaning, but the building would remain dry. Remaining moisture issue from the tunnel does that eliminate moisture in option 1 or 2. We are confident they can address any moisture issues.

Bruce asked about how mold is developed; the goal is to remove the moisture that causes the mold. All the mechanicals will assist with having a mold-free building. Bruce asked about previous works completed, and Dean said this is a common practice for their firm to address issues.

Going to the state is for an investigation, not the final process.

Vote: 5-0

Next meeting will be scheduled following the meeting with the state.

Follow Up Public Comment

Melissa Asselin - 228 Smith Hill Road - 2011 Torrington Area Health sighted the berm around the property has mold. Concern regarding the placement of the playground. All of the berms around the building would be removed in the planning process per Dean.

Rob Asselin - 228 Smith Hill Road - Electric Bill has anyone estimated the amount. Dean responded with that equipment cost will be estimated once the particular equipment is selected. Electrical expenses are likely to go up due to the fact you are adding AC, air exchange, etc. Gas would be selected for rooftop units. Other efficiencies will be added to improve costs (insulation, mechanicals).

4.       Adjournment - Motion to adjourn at 7:24 PM.

January 28, 2019 Minutes

JANUARY 28, 2019, AT 6:00 PM
Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                              Dave Carter, Vice Chair     

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

6:00 PM

1.   Roll Call – M. Brady-Shanley, C. Perez, D. Carter, D. Denning, D. Pfenninger, R. Geiger, S. Vaill, T. Sandonato, M. Ruzbason, M. Bird, M. Hintz, B. Stratford

2.   Pledge of Allegiance

3.   Public Comment

John Wilarda - Winsted, CT - Drainage under Hinsdale, has it been checked that it is clear or backed up. SV responded that there are no obstructions in the tunnel.

Candy Perez - Comments are mentioned to me often. Reminder, thank you to the committee. The BOS and BOE formed this committee to look into the issues; this takes time and investigation. Our elementary schools have not had work done in a very long time. Whichever way we go, we do need to do some work on an elementary school. We learn more each time we meet, and we will continue the investigation process. There will be community meetings, and all meetings are open to the public. Winsted is in a better place now. Schools drive economics and home values. The town has been making purposeful efforts to improve our finances to address the infrastructure.

4.    Business – Update from Design Team

a)    Recap of our last meeting - Reviewed the minutes and conversations from the previous meeting. Highlighted the information regarding taking down the part of the building down over the river. On 1/23/19 team met with the state. The town was interested in the reimbursement rate.

b)    Update on meeting with the State of CT, School Construction grants on 1/23/19

The meeting was held on 1/23/19 the state looked at a district holistically. Two concepts were shared - keeping the building as is or taking down the part over the river. The state favored taking down a portion of the building that is over the river. This will once and for all solve the issue of the river. They would penalize us if we didn't take the old building down (2 story building) by giving us a lower reimbursement rate. The state favored this solution from a financial, programmatic, and corrective measure. This direction was strongly encouraged. David Carter further explained the reasoning - The head the grant office is very familiar with Winsted. He was insistent on doing this project correctly.  

c)    Space Standards discussion (including directive from the State)

Every year around June, the state establishes a reimbursement rate - the rate is currently at 70.+%. The other part of the calculation is population - space standards calculation. There is always wiggle room in the space standards calculation.

The district has provided the current and future enrollment projections - we are allowed to look at eight years. We are allowed to use the highest enrollment number within the eight years. The district provided them with five years; we will be providing them with the additional three years. The current number is 269, as the highest five-year projection.  The max square footage is 33,625 for the building. You do get charged if you go over the allowed square footage. However with an existing building, there is another calculation, you actually get an additional 25% allowance since the building was built before 1950.

The question was asked about reimbursing on the current square footage Answer - The state we will not reimburse beyond the allowable square footage without a change to the reimbursement rate.

If we take a portion down, would you entertain rebuilding it and maximizing the reimbursement. The state said they will give a 10% space standard allotment. They are saying if you don’t solve the river issue, we will not finance that square footage. They will pay for the demo of the building and reconstruction at the full 70%. See the chart for detailed information titled square footage allowance.

If we do not proceed with taking the building down, the reimbursement rate will drop to 48%.

You can apply in June and have a referendum after the grant application is submitted.

Michelle Hintz - Is the state not recommending building a K-6? David Carter - Responded no, the state sees this as a better option.

Tony Sandonato - What does a post-June referendum do to the schedule? If the district filed in June, we would not have funding until after a referendum passes so it would likely be December or January. 

Next space standard looks at taking the give back, and the old area down - 33625 allowable, 36988 sq footage with 10% bonus area. The downside of this is we lose square footage, and will need to make programmatic space changes. This keeps the reimbursement rate at 70%. The new addition would be 4400 sq ft.

d)    Floor plan impact & initial concepts

Doug Pfenninger - What is in the original two-story section? Answer - 4 classrooms, stairs, two bathrooms, gym/cafe, four classrooms, state, toilets, kitchen.

Stairs on Hinsdale would stay.

The new addition would have a multipurpose room, kitchen, and two classrooms (this is only a suggestion). You can always build beyond the allowable square footage, but the reimbursement goes down.

Jay Markwell - Are you able to build up? The current building is all on grade, building on top is always feasible, we need an elevator, two stairs. It would add 350K for just circulation, restructure the load, the building is so small it doesn't lend itself well to a second story. The new addition does not require us to seek any variances from planning and zoning. From an economic standpoint, and practicality of keeping young children at grade. It comes down to the cost and if you want the additional fees.

How many square feet would a multipurpose space need to be to house the entire school - approximately 3000 sqft

e)    Updated estimates based on the above information

Keeping the building as it is currently 50000 square foot model - the cost would be $9,217,245 to the town with a 48.3% reimbursement rate.

Tear Down Model - 36,000 square foot model, cost to the Town $7,792,854 with a 70% reimbursement rate

Melissa Asselin - Clarified about the total cost, are all costs of the site work included in this. Dean Petrucelli responded - yes, everything is included

Renovating Batcheller - The state did not like the idea of Batcheller.

Rob Asselin - Is the kitchen being taken down? Response - from Dean Petrucelli, The kitchen will be installed in the new section. 

f)    Next steps

Michelle Hintz made a motion to investigate programming and design in the new addition. Tony Sandonato, 2nd. 7-0

5.  Approve Invoices 

  1. Invoice # 19-34 (1/1/2019) - Motion by David Carter, Second by Steve Vaill - 7-0
  2. Invoice #18-2550 (12/1/2019) - Motion by David Carter, Second by Steve Vaill - 7-0

6.  Next Meeting Date - February 13, 2019, at 6 PM Blue Room

Adjournment at 7:31 PM

February 13, 2019 Minutes

Wednesday, February 13, 2019, AT 6:00 PM

Meeting Facilitator:  Steven Frazier, Chair
                                 Dave Carter, Vice Chair     

Invitees: M. Bird, M. Shanley-Brady, D. Denning, R. Geiger, M. Hintz, N. Kelly, N. O’Dea, C. Perez, D. Pfenninger, M. Ruzbason, T. Sandonato, B. Stratford, and S. Vaill

1.         Roll Call - D. Denning, S. Frazier, M. Brady-Shanley, M. Hintz, D. Carter, N. O’Dea-Wyrick, D. Carter - 7:00 PM

2.         Pledge

3.         Public Comment - No public comment

4.         Business – Update from Design Team - Projected enrollment for the next five years was reviewed. Aligned the number of students with the square footage allowance, equaling 36,988. We are allowed an additional 1,000 square foot due to the building being older. The addition can be 4,400 square foot according to the current enrollment. Since the last meeting, SP and A worked with the instructional team to redo the floor plan. Program goal was to get it to fit within the allowable 37,000 square foot. 

         a)          Revised floor plan review

Dean Petrucelli reviewed the potential floor plan. See attachment of “Revised Scheme 3”. Based on 269 enrollment and Pre-K 3 to Grade 2.

BG - Asked if you could potentially seek additional classroom space. SP and A said absolutely

DF - Does this solve the water problem? - Yes, it will solve the issue. 100-year flood flows off-site.

MH - Size of school kitchen is 10% larger than previous.

SV - Is there a generator scheduled to go in. Currently, none in the plan but the DAS will support a new generator at 70% reimbursement.

DC - Solar? Eversource for solar? Dean Petrucelli - It would be a cost prohibitive to the project. The current building has not been analyzed to see if the current structure could handle the additional weight of solar.

Dean Petrucelli then presented the eight-year enrollment forecast required by the state. Maximum enrollment potential is what the state looks at. MBS explained how we arrived at the numbers. Maximizing Pre-K enrollment and averaging 80 Kindergartener.

The increase to the enrollment of 293 allows for a 40,000 sq. foot building.

BG - Talked about regionalization. Old models will be forced to change.

DP - When you file for the grant before June 30th, the grant funding amount will be funded at 70%. The number will reset on July 1. Reimbursement rates say relatively similar year to year.

MH - Wants to investigate the additional square footage.

         b)          Revised site plan review

Don Smith presented the site plan. See “site plan 2 13 2019.” Currently, no planning and zoning variance needed.  If the building would be larger, the variance would be needed. 58 parking spaces on the site. Parent loop would remain with 23 spaces. 4 discharge spaces for student exit. A 5 bus loading area. 2 new playgrounds. Stormwater management on the sides of the field.

For the section of the building coming down. 8 parking spots off of Spencer Dr. Brook would be exposed. Fencing would be installed and guide rail for safety around the brook.

A second pipe would be added to release the water flowing under the driveway

SF - This plan takes care of water and mold issues in the building. All water issues will be resolved. All new ductwork throughout the building. Therefore all issues mitigated.

JB - Is it less expensive to go out or up. Up is a lot more expensive. DP would suggest staying on one story even if it means seeking a variance.

SF - Asked do you need a motion to investigate for the additional 3,000 sq ft.

Michelle Hintz - Made the motion

Dale Denning - 2nd.

4 - Yes

0 - No

1 - Abstain

Motion Passes

         c)           Revised Opinion of probable construction cost review

DP reviewed the scope of cost with the team. With the addition of the building 4,400 sq. foot. Total construction cost $14,149,400. Cost to the town - $8,842,448

If you do the addition based on increased enrollment, it would be about $9.3.

         d)      Schedule/Next steps.     

February 25 at 6 PM Blue Room

5.         Adjournment - 7:11 PM Dave Carter Motion, Michelle Hintz 2nd

Request for Proposal