By John Schwing
WESTPORT — The Long Lots School Building Committee is formally asking for $6.8 million to begin designing a new structure to replace the seven-decade-old elementary school — a project estimated to cost nearly $100 million when complete.
The committee convened a brief online “special” session Friday afternoon, on advice of the Town Attorney’s Office, to publicly act on its funding request prior to presenting it to the Board of Finance meeting Wednesday, Feb. 7. That meeting will take place at 7:30 p.m. in Town Hall’s auditorium.
The $6.8 million request, in fact, was included on the finance board’s agenda, per a Wednesday revision, even before the LLSBC on Thursday posted a public notice of its Friday meeting to request approval for the money.
The last-minute Friday meeting was described as “a housekeeping” matter by Jay Keenan, the building committee chairman and RTM District 2 member — scheduled at the recommendation of Town Attorney Ira Bloom.
The $6.8 million, several committee members noted, is part of overall projected expenditures to build a new Long Lots Elementary School. The total amount, according to a document the committee has submitted to the Board of Finance, is estimated to be $98.2 million.
The request for design fees was approved Friday by a unanimous vote of LLSBC members, forwarding the proposal to the finance board next week.
The $6.8 million in design fees, if approved by the Board of Finance and Representative Town Meeting, will increase the town’s debt service by $467,000 for 20 years beginning in 2025, according to the document filed with finance officials.
A capital expenditure to actually construct the new school — estimated at $85 million, with anticipated 15-16 percent reimbursement from the state — would be formalized based on recommendations by the architect and engineers hired to design the project.
If the design fees are not approved, “the project cannot go forward,” the document states.
With approval of design fees, the largest share — $6.2 million — would be spent to hire an architect, mechanical, civil/site and structural engineers, and peer review consultants, although specific amounts for each of those professional services were not detailed Friday. The rest would be allocated: $190,000 for a construction manager/pre-construction services, $175,000 for a town manager/representative, $195,000 for site tests, studies and borings, and $40,000 for printing and miscellaneous costs.
Requests for competitive bidding on the design jobs, however, have yet to be issued by the committee.
“We tried to do this in executive session, [but] the temperature did not warrant going into executive session … I would have preferred, and I think I’m not alone, to not showing this [budget] number, but that was not an opinion that won the day.”
Don O’Day, Long Lots School Building Committee member
That prompted Richard Lowenstein, a District 5 RTM member, to ask why the committee had disclosed its budget for design consultants prior to seeking bids.
Describing his own question as “naive,” Lowenstein asked: “Why do you tell people who are going to bid on the project how much you are willing to pay as opposed to what they offer?”
“This is very confusing,” he said, adding it gives professionals bidding on the design team jobs “no incentive” to bid lower.
Don O’Day, a building committee member and District 3 RTM member, agreed with Lowenstein, saying the question was not “naive.” He said he also finds it “totally, completely, 100 percent inappropriate” to publicly disclose the design budget before seeking competitive bids.
But, O’Day added, “We tried to do this in executive session, [but] the temperature did not warrant going into executive session — it is what it is.
“I would have preferred, and I think I’m not alone, to not showing this [budget] number, but that was not an opinion that won the day,” he added.
Asked by Lowenstein who made that decision, O’Day confirmed it was the Town Attorney’s Office.
Another question was raised by Toni Simonetti, who asked whether the design team would be allowed to consider options for the project other than the 8-24 application approved last month by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Specifically, she wondered if designers could be given leeway to consider excluding use of “terrace 1” on the Long Lots property, the current site of the Westport Community Gardens.
The answer is “no,” Keenan told Simonetti. “We have an approved 8-24 from Planning and Zoning, and that is what we are proceeding with.” That plan includes using the garden site for a multi-purpose athletic field and relocating the gardens.
John Schwing, the Westport Journal consulting editor, has held senior editorial and writing posts at southwestern Connecticut media outlets for four decades. Learn more about us here.
Prioritizing shielding the LLSBC from potential embarrassment by expert consultants who might provide viable design options preserving tier 1 is simply despicable. This is just the latest slap in the face of Westport’s residents who will be mandated to pay for this project – and is final evidence that the LLSBC is determined to destroy Tier 1 in the process of rebuilding the Long Lots Elementary School at all cost.
Handcuffing consultants who are being paid millions of dollars in this manner is unconscionable – ESPECIALLY since the P&Z specifically requested that other design options be explored by the hired consultants. What is the LLSBC afraid of?
That the FS and RTM initially bypassed the Public Site and Building Committee and then ghosted them is abhorrent enough. That the FS, LLSBC and PRD schemed while intentionally omitting important impacted stakeholders was demeaning enough. That the FS and LLSBC are now premeditatedly preventing our hired design consultants from utilizing their expertise, imagination and vision is absurd, intolerable and unjustifiable. That the LLSBC is intentionally dismissing the P&Z Commission’s request that the design experts explore alternatives to the LLSBC 8-24 proposal is insulting both to them, and to the Westport’s residents who elected them to protect our interests. AND, publicizing the price that Westport’s taxpayers will pay to all potential bidders is a naively reckless disservice to our taxpayers. Who would ever think this would occur?
In addition to all the prior problems, because the design process is now being unnecessarily restricted, and given that the competitive bidding process is now severely compromised, any responsible BoF would deny this funding request. But they won’t because the FS and the LLSBC with the collaboration of their hired Town Attorney have proven that they care only about forcing this upon us all with the hubris of a patriarchy in conjunction with threats of a looming “delay”.
We need a new Long Lots Elementary School. We want a new Long Lots Elementary School. But this is not the way this should be happening. The FS and LLSBC should be ashamed of themselves.
Dr. Walshon is absolutely correct in every word he has written as is Toni Simonetti.
The town is not paying for this project. We the voting tax payers are paying for it. Every last over inflated dollar of it is coming out of our pockets, so make no mistake we will be keeping an eagle eye on every last minute detail.
We are entitled to transparency, which should include the PSBC being involved immediately.
Why they are not is a mystery. They have far more experience than the LLSBC.
The PSBC involvement could only serve to improve the end result and very likely save us a lot of money.
This process, has been shrouded in deception and utter contempt thus far.
Is it any wonder so many of us are confused, and very suspicious.
The fact that designers will not be given the leeway to explore all options is outrageous but again not remotely surprising.
The fact that a price tag of $100m has been put on this project by people who haven’t a clue what the total cost should be is insanity.
Look up the cost per square foot to build a school in 2023. It is $200-$700 psf.
So where on gods green earth is $100m coming from.
This reminds me of the compo beach bathrooms. Unbelievably outrageous numbers for no reason.
It reminds me of the prices contractors will quote to build a closet or a bathroom. It’s as though they sometimes pull the number out of their rear end.
Yet when it comes down to it you can build a beautiful bathroom for a fraction.
The moment someone asks me what my budget is I run a mile.
Why would we want to show our hand ? How is that going to get us anywhere but ripped off ?
The school should have never been given a price tag. Not before a completed design, at which point a quantity surveyor should then be hired to count every piece of lumber and tile, light switch and toilet etc.
then and only then can a realistic budget be created.
Where is the incentive for any contactor to now bid $60 million for a project already given an outrageously over inflated price tag of 100 m
Newsflash ! It is a school we are building not a four seasons hotel.
It’s not going to have fireplaces, and coffered ceilings.
Elaborate trim and crown mouldings, or custom tiles. It’s not going to have wide plank oak flooring or German kitchen appliances.
Seriously what is going on here.
This just stinks, down to those in charge just not caring because the price tag is being shared by 28,000 town residents.
So is it any wonder that we the tax payers are bewildered and have been left shaking our heads.
I sincerely hope a quantity surveyor rfp is on the list. Someone tasked with working out costs down to every last screw and nail that will be used on this project. they can also factor in a fair cost for labor. Again so we can minimize just how ripped off we are going to be. Because other than that, all the bidders know so far is that the town of Westport is willing to spend $ 100m of their residents money without batting an eyelid.
Without a shadow of a doubt that is the most irresponsible aspect of this whole process, the declared minimum price tag, before there is even a design. And incidentally a three story school will likely shave $15-20 million off the price tag. Yes imagine that. Not to mention savings on heating and air conditioning bills, and maintenance. I wonder will the “designers” be allowed to consider a 3 story school building, or will they be told by LLSBC that it must be 2 floors ?
And lastly as Yulee Aronson has asked, are all elements going to be procured through a competitive and transparent RFP process, because that would be the norm and I believe it is in our town charter
But nothing so far in this process has been the norm.
From here on out every single meeting that mentions the long lots school should be at a minimum recorded.
Under FOIA, there should be no private unrecorded meetings permitted any longer.
If everything is being handled appropriately then this should not be an issue, or something to fear.
But we should all be very fearful of the basically predetermined price tag.
Mr.O’Day’s suggestion for an executive session to discuss the project budget would not be allowed under laws that protect our democracy, namely Open Meetings and Freedom of Information.
But to Mr. Lowenstein’s point, couldn’t bids for project design have been let months ago, if not for the repeated and deliberate delays by the town?
It seems to me that Toni Simonetti is attempting to have a lot of input and control over this project. What is her position in the town of Westport? The 8-24 was approved. What does Toni want now?
Ah Stephanie Frankel. I am a tax paying citizen and an elector, in the town of Westport since 2000. I have various professional and non professional credentials that I’m sure are of no interest to you.
What do I want? Good honest governance. It would also be nice to have fellow citizens who know when they are being bamboozled. In the very recent words of US Rep. Jim Himes, “… A citizenry that is up to the challenge of democracy … Citizens armed to be good, thoughtful critical thinkers… who can identify information from misinformation, disinformation and deep fakes.”
I’d like to know if other elements such as a construction management and testing services be procured through competitive RFP process?