By Linda Conner Lambeck
WESTPORT — With major distractions presumably in the rear-view mirror, leaders of the Long Lots School Building Committee assured school officials last week that it is now full speed ahead toward building a new $100 million school.
“Trust the building committee,” Donald O’Day, a member of both the building committee and Representative Town Meeting, told the Board of Education’s meeting at Staples High School.
“Know that we are moving forward as quickly as we can in the most financially prudent way” to complete the project, O’Day added. At this point, O’Day and committee Chair Jay Keenan, also an RTM member, said the entire community should embrace the process and not hold the committee back.
What about water containment on the site, asked board Chair Lee Goldstein, referencing a frequntly cited concern about the Hyde Lane property.
Keenan assured her the issue is being addressed, and is not expected to further delay the project.
The project — so far delayed by a year from initial estimates to a 2027 completion date — has not bogged as a result of the site’s water issues, Keenan insisted.
There remains a lot of concern about the impact construction and the new school will have on drainage, board member Robert Harrington pointed out.
“A lot of people … not just gardeners or neighbors,” Harrington said. “I speak to a lot of friends … Is [drainage] something we should not be concerned with because you are confident those issues are not real?”
Keenan acknowledged that a stream runs through the property and, “It needs to be addressed.” But water containment will be part of the design process.
Engineers have been hired to make sure the project does not increase the flow of water from the property, he said.
Goldstein asked when schematic drawings of the new building be available. Sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas, she was told.
Since the building committee last reported to the board in the spring, the project has received Board of Finance and RTM approval for $6.8 million to hire both architectural and engineering firms.
The hiring process took longer than expected, which contributed to the delayed timeline, the school board was told. Plans initially called for construction to start before the end of this year, but now it’s not expected to start until the middle of next year.
Interior spaces in the plan have changed somewhat, but the square footage remains the same.
A few things remain up in the air, like whether the new school will be used, if need be, as an emergency shelter. That was not in the initial plans. A shelter would require stronger, hurricane-resistant windows in the school’s gym and cafeteria and a separation between those areas and the rest of the structure. The cost of that add-on is being explored.
The school is still looking to getting at close to “net zero” in terms of carbon footprint as possible, including installation of geothermal equipment.
The plan is “toget building to as close to off the grid as can,” Keenan said.
The goal is to complete construction of the new building by the start of summer 2027. Then, the committee hopes there will be enough time to move furnishings and other equipment from the old school, followed by demolition of that seven-decade-old building, while work on parking lots and fields is finished before classes start in September 2027.
The committee, however, admits timing will be tight.
Supt. of Schools Thomas Scarice warned the school board to expect flexibility with the school calendar, at least for Long Lots, when the school opens. He also told the board that his staff is in lockstep with committee actions.
Susan Chipouras, the project manager for the building committee, told the board that students and staff in the existing Long Lots can expect to hear construction work as the new building rises on the same campus.
Planners hope to keep disruptions to a minimum, she added, with strict rules about when equipment and materials like steel can be delivered to the Hyde Lane property.
Freelance writer Linda Conner Lambeck, a reporter for more than four decades at the Connecticut Post and other Hearst publications, is a member of the Education Writers Association.
I would not characterize the destruction of a beloved community garden and carefully curated native preserve a “distraction.” I would call it a travesty.
I would not describe neighborhood concern about property floods and a construction shitpile a “distraction.” I would call it disrespecting your constituents.
The Daily Stoic has this reading for October 11
Honesty as Our Default
”How rotten and fraudulent when people say they intend to ‘give it to you straight.’ What are you up to, dear friend? It shouldn’t need your announcement, but be readily seen, as if written on your forehead, heard in the ring of your voice, a flash in your eyes— just as the beloved see in a lover’s glance. In short, the straightforward and good person should be like a smelly goat — you know when they are in the room with you.”
— Marcus Aurelius
Meditations, 11.15
Toni, didn’t Lou sign an agreement with the town where he could use the site to garden… But if the town decided they needed it, he would have to leave and leave without drama? Sort of a you can “borrow it” lease without paying rent?
Yes, For the Preserve not the garden.But that is not the point. The point is the town parcels are not needed to build a school, but rather for unrelated athletic fields.
Are you sure about that? I believe Lou said he had to sign an agreement with the town to use that space when it was 1st started as a garden. Part of the liability and very clearly stating if the town wanted that space… for whatever they deemed necessary, it would not be a fought.
Yes I am sure. I have copies of all the documents. When the garden was expanded it was decided that it would not be used by the school and that the garden was the “best use” of the land on a permanent basis. Send me your email and I’ll send you the documents.
And it is still not the point of the matter. A trophy school will be built regardless. It’s the trophy soccer/baseball/etc fields, possibly with artificial turf no less, that are displacing the gardens and Preserve.
There are 30-40 mature maple trees (30-50 ft.tall) in the Long Lots parking lot and in front of the school. They are planted in swales to collect water. The Long Lots Committee told me they were going to be eradicated to accommodate a new parking lot configuration at a LLC meeting. It’s what they don’t tell us that is concerning. You can’t this stuff up!!
Furthermore, each tree takes in thousands of gallons of water each year. How is this going to affect the abundant water sheds to the south and Muddy Brook to the north? Has an environmental study been done to gauge the impact? The original builders of LL School knew what they were doing regarding water retention. Between the eradication of the gardens, the native pathway planting and 40 trees…..that’s a lot of water.
Westport: Where Greenwashing Grows, and Gardens Go
Keenan and O’Day continue to represent what is the worst of Westport, as they continue to try to gift a soccer field to their buddies (and the First Selectwoman) and embed the expense in a new school.
When I was on RTM, I tried to take a Hippocratic approach of “first do no harm.” But the Long Lots Building Committee has looked at the 20-year-old Garden as the “cost of doing business,”
In meetings, Keenan’s duplicity has been appalling. He has said, “you wouldn’t expect us to take something away without having a plan to replace it” (referring to the ball field that would be TEMPORARILY displaced during construction) while planning for the destruction of the Gardens (and preserves) without any plan for their replacement.
Wouldn’t anyone with a brain in his head say, “let’s look at the Gardens as a last resort – as they are the only one in Town? But we have 21 ball fields, so let’s temporarily reschedule until we have the 21st back again.”
Obviously, these two don’t care about the Gardens, because the First Selectwoman wanted them to provide a new soccer field.
Someone should ask Keenan why, in meetings with the neighbors, he has blamed the Gardeners for the delays (and has asked members of the community to not record his comments in these meetings).
“Trust the Building Committee”, seriously?
One simply need only to look back 14 months at the committee’s inability to work openly in an authentic process, to work with the community, to work with the gardeners and with the youth sports organizations to realize; the word “trust” and “Long Lots School Building Committee” cannot be used in the same sentence.
This is a committee that kept no written minutes of meetings nor audio visual tapes for public record.
This is a committee that bullied the gardeners and all those who questioned the committee’s process and decisions.
This is the committee that wouldn’t consider designing a compact footprint, a (3) story building that worked in harmony with the site’s natural topography, thereby allowing more open space for storm water absorption.
This is a committee that laid out a site plan that destroyed the award winning, 20+ year old community garden in order to accommodate the needs of a Major League Baseball sized field, on a site that not one child within the school would ever be old enough to play on that field while attending Long Lots El.
This is a committee that told parents they would break ground in the Fall of 2024, when the professionals (those not part of the committee !) knew that was an absolute lie, formed to placate the LLS parents.
Those in the design and construction industry knew all along starting construction in 2024 was a bold faced lie and we stated so at numerous public meetings, while being ridiculed by militant parents and building committee groupies.
So here we are today; The article states their “Schematic Design drawings are not yet complete”. Shocking !
To be clear, what the Town “bought” a year ago was simply a feasibility study. The community was under the impression the committee was much further along in the process. How in the world could this committee have stated a year ago, they would break ground in 2024 when they hadn’t yet hired the architect? Why lie to the Town?
This is a committee that lacks a shred of creativity, unwilling to even consider hosting a design competition for this new $100,000,000 school because “time was of the essence”. Apparently, time was not of the essence as here we are one year later without a Schematic Design.
Over a year ago when it was suggested to select 3-5 renowned architectural firms for a design competition, this is the committee who scoffed at the notion claiming there was no time for a competition. That turned out not to be true.
A design competition would have offered the community the ability to select a schematic building design, as opposed to the committee’s route of selecting an architectural firm, hoping the architect arrives at the desired design solution. That was a huge mistake. They never wanted the community’s input. This is a closed door operation, cloaked in secrecy with distain for anyone outside their little fiefdom. Would it require more volunteer and committee work? Yes, it would and rightly so for a proposed new building with an (80) year life expectancy at $100M.
For clarification, Schematic Design is the first phase in the process, followed by the Design Development Phase (which introduces structural, civil, mechanical, electrical design into the schematic design drawings) which is then followed by the Construction Documents Phase (aka, the working drawings and specifications used by the builder). Following the CD Phase is the Bid & Contracts Phase, when the documents are bid out for pricing, this could take 3-4 months followed by time to award contracts. Here is where the lawyers and the State become involved, that could take a fair amount of time. An expedited time frame could take; (3-4) months for Design Development, (6-8) months for Construction Documents, (2-4) months for Bid and Contracts Phase. Therefore an expedited time frame for a ground breaking is between (11 – 16) months from today.
Some of us mentioned, that in all probability, the same architectural firm that was hired to create the feasibility report, somehow would manage to win the architectural commission for the entire new school building. I mentioned that during a public meeting and was ridiculed, I actually bet everyone in the room one year ago a dinner, if a different firm were to be hired. You all owe me a dinner, you know who you are.
Finally, this is a committee appointed by First Selectwoman Jen Tooker and that is where the buck stops. The Pubic Site and Building Committee has been point blank denied involvement in this process by the Jen Tooker without explanation. In all fairness, both political parties within the Board of Ed. and the RTM are culpable for their disappointing lack of vision. It’s disturbing to have a board involved with educating our children that lacks vision. I always believed education and vision were linked. This lack of vision is what I consider the greatest sin being perpetrated on our community. Westport was once a town filled with creatives; artists, actors, writers, musicians all committed to sharing their creativity to make this town the best version of itself. Why the B. of E. has no vision nor interest in the creation of a state of the art learning facility, given the $100M investment is beyond my comprehension. If the community is to commit resources of this magnitude, why are we not designing a flagship institution for learning? Why aren’t we thinking about the learning process differently? The building committee will push back claiming they are designing a state of the art facility but it won’t be. Their product will be indicative of their process. It certainly feels like this new school project is just another box to be checked off on their To-Do list by all those involved and that is quite disappointing. The community should be rallying around this exciting new school project yet they are not because they have been marginalized during every step of the process.
Joseph V. Vallone, A.I.A.
Pave Paradise to put up a ballfield lot… The ONLY garden we have. Travesty and, frankly, embarrassing for the Town. Yet another clear indicator how the quality of life in Westport continues to diminish.
Don’t worry, the branding experts will clean this mess up.
Could be one of the three greatest lies…”The check is in the mail”..”It’s only a cold sore”..and “Trust the building committee”….
As a Westport resident, a parent of a child at Long Lots who will only see the new school getting built, I fully trust the Long Lots building committee. They have done an incredible work to prioritize the safety and health of Westport children, despite all the lies, conspiracy theories, and the continuous attacks. While we discuss, design, and build the new school, the existing school is only getting bare funding to keep it functioning, and hence time is not on our side. We need the new building to be completed without any unnecessary delays.
And yes, it is very unfortunate that while the new school is getting built, we will not have access to the athletic fields nor the community gardens. As you know, athletic fields are not easy to replace, while the community gardens have been relocated multiple times over the past couple of decades. In the end, the property where the school and community plots are located is owned by the town, and an 8-24 application is required to make any changes to it. The P&Z has approved the feasibility study to build a new school and use the community gardens space if needed for construction. Moreover, based on Westport charter, the First Selectman(woman) has the authority to assign a building committee to oversee the renovation or construction of a new school, and this exact process has been the practice for decades for different town schools.
Here is a link to the 2009 document that was submitted to P&Z by Parks & Recs to recommend the expansion of the community gardens, while explicitly mentioning the non-permanent status for the gardens [https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/81335/638331307670630000]
“It should be noted that expansion of the gardens would not preclude future conversion of this property from gardens to athletic fields if the needs of the community dictate. There are many examples of change of public property from one use to another and given the relatively modest cost of development of the gardens, this should not be viewed as an irrevocable decision.”
Please refer to the updated and final ruling in on Feb. 11, 2010 when the decision was debated and finalized, not a transient memo.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:9b45e54c-39d1-4080-9462-216d7c72e048
The document that I have linked is the Parks & Recs letter to P&Z as part of the 8-24 application where they state that they are in favor of the expansion of the community plots with the understanding that they don’t view their location as permanent. Whereas the document you are linking is the P&Z positive 8-24 report. I am not sure why you call the Parks & Recs letter a “transient memo”. Parks & Recs is responsible for the oversight of the community gardens.
We want the community gardens to remain part of Westport, but we want to have a new healthy and safe school first. It is really unfortunate that it has come to this point though. But what keeps me commenting here is that lies and conspiracy theories cannot drive the decision making. We can’t keep redirecting the discussion and blaming Jen Tooker, Babe Ruth field, the building committee, or soccer parents.
And more importantly, parents want to share the school property with like minded groups that will be there for them in time of need. Perhaps the community gardens should not have been sharing the same property of the oldest school building in the first place?
Will Jen Tooker be there for a photo op when the bulldozers come to take out the community garden? Will Jay Keenan, Don O’Day, and the rest of the LLSBC be there for that ignominious event? Authentic leaders who stand behind their decisions would have the courage to be behind the wheel of that bulldozer when the first root is yanked out of the ground. Something tells me that no one who has forced this unholy decision on Westport by their actions and inactions will be anywhere near LL that day.
Who determined the needs of the community are being met by putting up another ballfield & tearing down the garden? In my opinion they are not! .Since this a taxpayer driven project maybe it should have been included as a referendum on the Nov 5th ballot. Also, I was under the impression that Parks & Rec was being required to produce a feasibility study proving that another field was needed, Has this been done? If so, is this something that the public can request to see? Finally, why is another field being put up with taxpayers $’s when the “NON”-profit organizations that will be utilizing this field have millions in the coffers? Am I missing something?
The feasibility study was looking at how to build a new school, keep existing school functional while the new school is built, and then after the new school is built, how to restore the land with the existing athletic fields and community gardens. So I am not sure why you think this is “another” ballfield. The existing athletic fields are in high usage, and you can watch multiple videos that discuss this, and particularly the P&Z meeting for the 8-24 application. The root cause of all of this is that a new school building needs to be built AND to keep existing school functional. The rest is to accommodate that.
Joe, then why is there a meeting scheduled to present a Barons South garden proposal to the Community Gardeners?
We have 20+ athletic fields in Town, and one Community Garden. Pretend that anyone’s interests but your own matter.
Do you ever speak the truth?
Let me answer this as respectfully as I can.
Given that we are planning on building a new school at the property, it is expected that one would need a plan for the rest of the property in its final stage (land use).
Do we want to replace the athletic fields that are on that property? Yes we do. We have a large demand for sports in this town.
Do we want to replace the community garden? Of course we do. The question though is should they miss a few growing seasons while the construction is going on, or does it make sense to take this opportunity to move them to a new place that can accommodate even more plots, and allow for the community to grow their food without interruption?
And to be honest, I think many members of the garden community would rather move to a new location and not miss their recreation. It is unfortunate that the voices of the few has been steering for an all-or-nothing demands.
The crux here is the growing seasons they will miss !
Haha.. we know this bribe.
Sooooo… solution.. you create a new community garden but the old community garden will re emerge in 2/3 years where it is ! Where PZ allowed it to be. And that by the way is not up to Lou !!!!!!
Just a small correction to your comment above. The last 8-24 application that the P&Z approved was to rebuild the community gardens/plots at Long Lots property, but not exactly in the same spot where it is right now, and not exactly the same size. No one is taking the community gardens away from Westport. And there is no ill intentions here to explore different options for the community gardens.
The westportcommunitygardens.org to this date has the following message on their home page:
It is unfortunate that reality keeps getting distorted. The reason the property (both athletic fields AND gardens) is getting destroyed is BECAUSE we need to build a new school and at the same time operate the existing one with minimum disruption to students. As long as this fact is intentionally or unintentionally ignored, it is impossible to reason.
The Westport Community Gardens leadership should be ashamed for how they have been dividing the community based on falsehoods, and attempting at each turn to delay the progress to build this new school. If the community gardens end up being a shadow of its old self, they have only themselves to blame for this.
This is such BS! Yiu are so out of whack…. Like byeeee
Joe Nader, What are you talking about ? You would read this and assume that long lots was in some ghetto !
Ohhhhh another ball field.. screw the gardens.
this school should be getting added on to. Not demolished. Of course exactly why the handpicked building committee was groomed to do this administrations bidding.
And if Tooker/moore had only paid it some tlc , over their years on pta/bof/board of ed, it would be fractionally expensive to fix/remediate and add on to. But this administration maintains absolutely NOTHING.
This is all about a ball field. You want us to spend 100 million plus for a god damn ball field.
If you want the “4 seasons” then go book a vacation. And not on our nickel thanks.
Meanwhile leave the garden alone, think about the flooding this may cause the neighbors who live beside this school.