By Gretchen Webster and John H. Palmer
EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been corrected to change erroneous information. Students will, in fact, be able to attend school in the current Long Lots building during the 2025-26 school year while construction is underway on the new building. The town will not need to find an alternative site for students to attend classes, as was originally reported. We apologize for that mistake.
WESTPORT – Members of a frustrated and concerned Representative Town Meeting on Tuesday evening listened as the Long Lots Building Committee gave them fewer details than they’d like about the elementary school project they’ll likely be asked to approve in the next 12 days.
Town officials are under the gun to approve the Long Lots Elementary School project by June 16, and last night’s meeting was an opportunity for RTM members to get an updated look at the building committee’s work, as well hear from the architects and finance officials about the costs of the building.
RTM members were told that the cost of the school has risen to about $108 million, an increase of about $10 million than previously thought. In addition, tariffs imposed by President Donald J. Trump are likely to drive costs up further.
RTM District 9 member Jennifer Johnson said the rushed review of the plan by the RTM on Tuesday “is too much to ask. We may not get there,” she said of not having enough information to make a final vote so soon.
In perhaps the evening’s most telling moment, Long Lots Building Committee Chairman Jay Keenan admitted to the RTM that he was unaware of a scheduling detail that has caused the town to be rushing through the financial approval process.
“My bad. I did not remember that we had a 14-day window,” Keenan said at Tuesday’s meeting.
Time crunch turns into a tizzy of meetings
Town officials are hurrying through the approval process to meet a June 30 deadline, after it was revealed last week that meeting the state’s deadline for grant approval was in jeopardy.
Finance Director Gary Conrad and Assistant Town Attorney Eileen Lavigne Flug told Westport Journal last Wednesday that a “realignment” of state departments that control grant funding resulted in the town’s deadline for submitting requests to change. The new deadline of June 30 was some four months earlier than the original one of October, catching town officials off guard.
In addition, a town charter regulation requires a two-week break period for any expenditure over $500,000 to allow for the opportunity to file for a public referendum. That means that the RTM, which is the ultimate deciding town body on financial matters, must approve the project’s appropriation request by June 16 before it can be submitted to the state.
If the town fails to meet the June 30 deadline, the grant funding would not be in the 2026-’27 state budget, and the opening of the new school, scheduled for 2027, would be delayed again unless the town made up for the gap in state funding.
Meanwhile, Keenan told the RTM contradictory information at a joint meeting of the finance and education committees on May 28, saying that the delay “has nothing to do with the state changing things.”
The confusion over timing has sent the town into a tizzy of at least 10 meetings over a two-week period, as town boards gather as much information as possible and rush to issue their own approvals before the RTM ultimately votes on a fund appropriation request. The schedule is already packed – the Planning and Zoning Commission alone is rushing to finish public hearings on the Hamlet development in Saugatuck by a legal closing date of June 18, and may have to find an option to extend that deadline.
On June 9, the planners will meet to discuss First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker’s controversial May 14 request for a new “8-24” land use report exiling the Westport Community Gardens from the school project, and will need to issue a positive report on the request to move the school project forward.
“As an RTM member it’s incumbent on us to understand this – we also have the Hamlet [Saugatuck development plan] bearing down on us,” said RTM member Johnson told the LLBC on Tuesday evening. “I’m not sure when we’re going to give it the review it deserves despite all your hard work.
RTM concerned about tariffs and timing
After a presentation of the plan by members of the Long Lots School Building Committee, RTM members had concerns about the costs of the new school continuing to rise, since the project has not yet been put out to bid. Several were concerned about the debt load the project would put on the town, possibly increasing taxes, especially when tariffs proposed by Trump could raise the price even higher.
District 9 Nancy Kail said that “tariffs and inflation and maybe supply chain issues,” could drive up the project’s costs.
The building committee members agreed. “This is a tariff issue and market issue,” said Don O’Day, who is both a member of the building committee and an RTM member. Building committee member Srikanth Puttagunta called the possibility of tariffs, “the biggest uncertainty.”
“This is an historic investment,” he said.
In addition, Keenan explained that the schedule for the building of the school will allow children to attend classes in the current school building during school year 2025-26 while the work on the new building is completed.
Then, at the start of the 2027 school year, the new school will open, the old building demolished, and the final work will be completed on the site and athletic fields.
District 9 RTM member Kristin Schneeman cautioned her follow members “to do some due diligence – this is the largest expense ever expended by the town. We are being asked to approve funds before going out to bid – approving money which is at the upper boundary – we’re the ultimate fiduciaries here in town.”
RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser had instructed the RTM members to ask building committee members for answers they needed to know before making a decision on the project.
“Tonight, I’m really anxious for the public and the RTM to discuss this in a manner that helps us … to ask questions on what they need to know before they’ll vote for or against this,” he said.
Moving forward, the Flood Erosion Control Board and Conservation Commission will convene tonight at 7 p.m. in a joint Zoom call to discuss the project, and then the Board of Finance is scheduled to meet tomorrow evening at 7:30 in the Town Hall Auditorium to discuss the funding appropriation request for the project.
Freelance writer Gretchen Webster, a Fairfield County journalist for many years, was editor of the Fairfield Minuteman and has taught journalism at New York University and Southern Connecticut State University.
John Palmer, a Norwalk native, is executive editor of the Westport Journal, and has covered community news in Fairfield County and Massachusetts for over 30 years. He can be contacted at jpalmer@westportjournal.com.
Having attended the meeting last night and sat through the entirety of the building committee’s presentation, the public comment and the lengthy RTM Q&A session, I’m surprised at this characterization of the tone of the meeting and had much different takeaways.
Yes, while the timing pressures were noted, what I saw was a group of town officials that, one, were highly complementary of the work the committee has done over the last c. 3 years and, two, a group of elected town officials committed to doing the work necessary so that they can make an informed vote with the time constraints they are working under. Even the more concerned voices among the RTM praised the work Jay and his team have done and their efforts to keep the RTM and other key stakeholders informed throughout the process.
I also think you are mischaracterizing the new $108m cost figure, as that increase from the previous $98m already accounts for expected increases in materials costs due to the tariffs based on the latest feedback from the contractors. Because we are operating in an extremely uncertain environment the committee was open about the risks of that number going up again, especially before they put the contract out for official bid, but I did not hear anybody say that they were “likely” to go up. They also noted that they have contingencies built in so that some elements – roofing choices, landscaping – can be simplified if costs on the core project do go up.
Given the alternative forums on which this issue has been hashed out I sincerely appreciate the Westport Journal keeping the town informed with actual reported journalism so I don’t at all intend this as a criticism of the story. I just know how much work has gone in to getting all stakeholders to the finish – well, starting, in some senses – line on this important project and I want to make sure that people get credit for that, even if there are some minor hiccups. And though it is ultimately impossible to completely satisfy every stakeholder in a project of this size, people in town should feel good about the work that’s been done and the seriousness with which both elected officials and unpaid volunteers have undertaken it.
The only thing that seems to have gone according to plan was the eviction and destruction of the 20 year old nationally acclaimed Westport Community Gardens and Preserve, which clearly could have existed for another year.
I don’t doubt the dedication of the building committee members, nor underestimate how difficult it is to nail down costs. That’s to be expected.
As we’ve continued our reporting, however, it’s become evident that not everyone is on the same page and not everyone is being transparent, and as a news organization it’s our job to let that be known.
We’ve got a finance director and an assistant town attorney telling us one thing, and a building committee chairman telling us another. The state tells us something else, so who is correct?
These are people being paid a lot of money on the town’s payroll, who are supposed to have these answers. With 12 days before the town’s governing board is set to vote to spend a very large chunk of change, I’d like to think they’d have these answers.
On top of that, there’s a chairman, responsible for justifying the expense of $108 million, whose attitude towards a very potentially consequential schedule mistake is simply “oops, my bad.”
That’s a very big oops.
I’ll add that the finance director has apparently gone on vacation in the middle of all this.
Things are going to get interesting, and we’re gonna hammer away until we get the right answers.
Thank you for reading!
Keep digging, John. I will too. It is important to respect the integrity of the governing process. That takes checks and balances.
In that vein, here is a link to my Substack column, “Almost Commune, “with some numbers that are possible to be last night’s version.
https://open.substack.com/pub/tonisimonetti/p/long-lots-appropriation-numbers?r=1dhpe&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I was there at the meeting last night, and this article is not a well balanced coverage.
Picking and choosing comments from the meeting for the purpose of depicting a certain story is not good coverage.
I applaud the building committee to have spotted in time the risk of a referendum to the Long Lots project. Imagine we would have missed the state deadline after fully funding the project because of a pending referendum! Good catch on their behalf, and kudos to them!
And what frustration is this article referring to? Is it regarding the missing itemized cost of the project? Again, this was addressed during the meeting (but not covered in this article), and was explained that the same process was done for CMS. The main reason for not making itemized cost public is that they want to get the best prices when this project goes out for bidding. Moreover, the RTM members will have private sessions to see these itemized costs, and ask questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
> How nice that must be for the privileged few that get to have “private meetings” about how to spend the pocketbook of Westport’s taxpayers. Where I come from, public expenditures must be done in the open, in a transparent process.
There are executive session meetings that are closed to the public, as you know. The RTM members are elected members, not any privileged few. And the process has been open and transparent. But there will always be conspiracy theorists who will make random connections with total disregards to the facts.
> You “applaud the building committee” for catching the mistake in time? Do you mean less than two weeks before the final vote? The committee had 3 years to catch this potential problem.
The building committee was already planning to come back for full funding by end of May/end of June based on their April public meeting comments. They were still busy getting all the necessary project plans ready for those meetings. At some point, they learned about this petition for a referendum that could cause delays and that would miss the state application deadline. The meetings were going to be held this month anyway, and moving them earlier in case a petition for a referendum is successful is the most common sense thing to make. Initially, your report was completely off the mark, and you were accusing the building committee that they were working for an October deadline, until a May 16 state letter was sent out. This was completely false. And now the story is that they had 3 years to know about the refenrundum? How many RTM members do you think know or remember reading this in Westport code of ordinances? When was the last time such a petition was used in Westport?
> What frustration? Let me introduce you to my email inbox, where it’s been filled with letters from folks who are, as the article mentioned, frustrated.
That’s great, but I am referring to the section below in your article in particular. You labeled the RTM members as frustrated and concerned. This seems very exaggerated don’t you think? How did you get to this conclusion?
“Members of a frustrated and concerned Representative Town Meeting on Tuesday evening listened as the Long Lots Building Committee gave them fewer details than they’d like about the elementary school project they’ll likely be asked to approve in the next 12 days.”
John Palmer is an excellent journalist who tells it like it is and stands up to people who are trying to silence him.
Joe Nader
— Private sessions to go over appropriation details would be grossly illegal. Don O’Day doesn’t understand Open Meetings law, and never did. I have video to prove it.
— The 14-day waiting period is to ALLOW FOR A REFERENDUM, not to avoid one. Once the RTM votes in favor of an appropriation, it is subject to referendum. A referendum petition signed by less than 1,900 registered voters puts this on the ballot. No one wants that, but that is what the charter allows. And you will miss the June 30 deadline if it happens.
— Any decision by the Conservation Commission and FECB can be appealed to the RTM with a petition signed by 20 residents. Again, you will miss the June 30 deadline if that happens.
You really need to research your talk points before publishing them.
The itemized costs MUST BE MADE PUBLIC IF THE FUNDING BODIES ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THEM. PERIOD.
This is still America, until otherwise notified.
Geesh.
CMS renovation had an appropriation of over $30M and was approved without any itemized costs, and any petitions.
What is different this time? If you had good faith issues with the process, how come you did not raise your hand back then in 2019?
Regarding the rest of your statements, I am sure there are provisions in the Freedom of Information that allows for withholding of disclosure when the public interest of doing so outweighs the benefits of releasing this information. The building committee already gave a very convincing reason that releasing the details will increase the cost to the town because the bidders will also have this information. This is definitely not in the interest of the town.
The difference is $78 million. I get that you want your soccer field, but I can’t imagine anyone wanting that kind of expenditure treated so casually.
It makes absolutely zero difference if the parties who are going to bid on it know the itemized list or the total number. Either way they will be absolutely gouging the town.
The school should be costing $4 psf to build. And not $8. It’s an absolute rip off.
Should be costing half of this budget. Makes no sense to someone with vast building experience.
The fact that other schools are at the same or similar numbers $ psf, is precisely because the total budget number is known by all contractors bidding on all schools.
The only way to keep them honest is to have someone vetting the rfp’s who is themselves a contractor of such builds.
Also a quantity surveyor who doesn’t pad the numbers by being too conservative.
There’s a severe lack of trust because of the disgraceful manner in which the garden was dealt with and then the scurrilous first 8-24, followed by another, which should not be passed unless the gardens have an appropriate home to go to.
To do otherwise will mean they will never be accommodated, having been kicked out of their 20 year beautiful gardens.
The lack of transparency is quite frankly a joke.
And just because CMS had a large appropriation less than 30% of this doesn’t mean anyone will call that precedent.. but it goes to show when residents and tax payers bend rules and let things slide, next thing we know it’s like a new standard is set.
So I guess lesson learned.
Nobody who has a say in approval of these finances can figure out whether to vote yes or no on this without the itemized list.
Also all materials should be purchased directly by the school from whatever country they come from cutting out middle men and greedy contractor mark ups.
A solar panel from China is $100… by the time we buy that same one in USA it is $1000. Lumber etc.. all the same about a 10x mark up.
Rice husk products are incredible.. coming mostly from India.
Far better than wood and cheaper, longer lasting, no maintenance. India is not going to be subject to the level of tariffs China is so be creative. Use rice husk products purchased direct from India.
That should all be purchased in house..
maybe then HVAC would not be listed as almost 13 million dollars..
it’s not hard. But requires a full time or 2 full time knowledgeable salaried hires to do this.. windows, doors.. should all be purchased this way.
Materials will be 40% of this or more.
That’s 40 million …. But if purchased direct could be $15 million..
There’s not enough thought gone into this.
Nobody cares enough when it’s communal spending. But they should be putting in place the mechanism to do all the above.
It’s not rocket science.
$2.5 – 5 million dollars..
that’s what is high and low for HVAC for a 120,000 sqf building..
why is it $13 million..
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+should+hvac+cost+for+a+120%2C000+sq+foot+building&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
I want to nominate Mary Ciara Webster to be in charge of spending for the new LLS building, and I think we should apologize profusely to the Gardeners and then offer them space behind the new building.
Thank you for your vote of confidence Bobbi.