Editor’s note: Following is an opinion submitted by Lee Caney, Chair, Westport Board of Finance, and Liz Heyer, Member, Westport Board of Finance and Representative, Long Lots School Building Committee.
Over the past few weeks, six town boards and commissions including the Architectural Review Board, Flood Erosion & Control Board, Conservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Finance, and Representative Town Meeting, reviewed the design plans and detailed pricing estimates for rebuilding Long Lots Elementary School, a school that had been deemed past its useful life. Funding requests for this project were always expected in June, as had been repeatedly stated at Building Committee meetings and project updates to town governing bodies.
While the calendar of meetings was condensed to secure approved town funding in time to meet the State deadline for project reimbursement, every same meeting was held, just as it would have if the approval process had been stretched over additional weeks. There was ample opportunity for board and commission members, as well as the public, to review the project and have all questions answered.
There were no secret meetings, and it is both incorrect and irresponsible to characterize them as such. The Board of Finance and RTM held two permissible Executive Sessions to review supporting detail behind the line-item pricing estimate. The line-item detail was available publicly, posted to the town website and updated as information was finalized. It’s common practice, and fiscally prudent, not to disclose detailed construction information so as not to jeopardize the future bidding process. Each board or commission unanimously approved the project, citing overwhelmingly positive comments about the creative building design despite challenging site topography, the drainage plans that significantly exceed requirements for on-site water management, the inclusion of sustainable elements, the careful consideration given to neighbors, the abundant opportunities for public comment during the planning process and the detailed benchmarking presented with the pricing estimate.
After the RTM’s final vote approving the funding, the public rose in a standing ovation to applaud the entire Westport community pulling together to bring this project to fruition. It was a feel-good moment, celebrating the power of a small-town community uniting to achieve big things.
You may not feel the town should invest in rebuilding the school even though all residents pay taxes for town amenities and services they may not personally benefit from. It’s understandably enticing to sign a petition that proposes lower project spend and a potentially lower impact to taxes. You have a right to disagree with the amount of funding appropriated and petition for a referendum but it’s critical to understand the consequences and trade-offs, and ensure misinformation isn’t influencing your decision.
The potential impact to taxes has been blatantly misstated in the context provided for the petition that seeks to reduce the amount of project funding for Long Lots from $103 million to $90 million. The town’s Chief Financial Officer calculated the theoretical impact to taxes resulting from funding the project to provide perspective for the cost of the investment. That calculation was based on the 2025-2026 tax rate, already approved in May by the Board of Finance to continue to fund current operating expenses, maintain financial security and prepare to absorb several large capital investments on the horizon.
This tax increase goes into effect July 1, 2025, regardless of whether the town approved funding for Long Lots and it will not decrease even if funding for Long Lots is reduced. Therefore, it’s misleading to attribute an increase to taxes from the Long Lots investment that includes the 2025-2026 tax increase. In addition, the Chief Financial Officer also communicated that calculations did not account for any decrease in debt service from expiring debt, real growth in the grand list, and/or state energy grants for sustainability, all of which would offset the potential impact.
The pricing estimate developed by Newfield Construction was carefully constructed, accounting for the uncertainty of materials and labor costs. Next, construction documents will be completed, and the project will be put out to bid. Throughout the design process, the Building Committee has value engineered components of the design and will continue to explore opportunities to reduce project cost.
It is thoughtless to reduce project funding to an arbitrary amount without understanding the actual realized savings from that proposed reduction. Reducing project funding to $90 million as the petition proposes, would require a complete project redesign.
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as lopping off a part of the building or eliminating the geo-thermal system. Significant changes impact the building as a whole and require other substantial changes for structural safety and properly functioning mechanicals, electrical and plumbing.
A redesign will cause delay and cost more money. The town has already spent several million dollars on design, and it would require spending several million dollars more for a new design. Does the proposal to reduce project funding to $90 million include funding for redesign and cost inflation associated with the delay? If so, this would leave less than $90 million for construction. If not, the additional money for design and cost escalation would eat away at the proposed savings.
In addition, no detail has been provided to evaluate trade-offs with reducing project funding, but there will have to be consequential educational impacts such as eliminating the multi-purpose auditorium and significant educational programming space, as well as other unpalatable cuts. In addition, non-essential elements would be eliminated such as additional drainage to help resolve flooding issues on Muddy Brook, sustainability elements, landscaping to ensure generous buffers for neighbors, residential aesthetic elements and adequate parking designed to eliminate traffic on Hyde Lane.
There are also costs associated with any funding delay which would result from a referendum – even if it doesn’t pass. If there is a referendum, the town will no longer be able to apply for state reimbursement this year as town funding must be secured by June 30. Missing the State deadline this year means the town would incur additional carrying costs in the range of $700,000 to $1.3 million to finance the project. It also jeopardizes the town’s possibility of securing state reimbursement as there is no guarantee that any state reimbursement will be available the following year, or at the same rates (there is discussion in the state legislature about further capping reimbursements).
Finally, the longer the rebuild is delayed, the more likely additional funding will be needed to fortify the current building. The school is on borrowed time, and at risk of needing significant investment to keep it functioning properly until the new school is built. (To be clear, the town has already invested money to ensure the school is safe for students, but while it is safe, it is not conducive for a quality learning environment. There is also not enough space at other elementary schools to absorb all Long Lots students, nor is there a building available that can be cost effectively retrofitted as a temporary school.)
Reducing project funding from $103 million to $90 million doesn’t deliver $13 million in savings as the petition might lead you to believe. As noted, there are many consequential impacts that significantly offset those presumed savings along with unacceptable trade-offs. Reducing the project funding would result in a significantly inferior school that sacrifices the educational experience, neighbor satisfaction and the town’s long-term investment.
The town boards and commissions evaluated all this information when they made their decisions, and these factors are some of the reasons for the unanimous approvals. Please consider whether an arbitrary reduction in project funding is based on sound analysis and delivers worthwhile savings before adding your name to a petition.
Respectfully,
Lee Caney, Westport Board of Finance, Chair
Liz Heyer, Westport Board of Finance, LLS Building Committee Representative
The executive sessions are currently being challenged as NOT PERMISSIBLE under the Open Meetings Law.
This was not a review of an RFP, but rather a review of a ($98 $101, $103) MILLION appropriation request and 4% tax increase. It was deemed “permissible” by the same attorney who represents the applicant who is asking for the money. Under any other circumstance, this fails the logic or smell test and should fail any attorney’s commitment to ethical lawyering.
Additional financial details were provided to both the BOF and those RTM members who attended their own secret meeting. The town has refused to disclose that information to the taxpayer.
The failure to publicly disclose full financial details available about the funding request is also being challenged under the Freedom of Information Act, and the basic right to know about tax levies against the people.
A proper review of this, the highest single appropriation ever, would have included full financial disclosure in plenty of time for both members of the funding bodies and the public to fully absorb the information, formulate questions, and ask questions at a public hearing. As it stands, no such opportunity was afforded them. A public hearing without full disclosure of the information is a sham.
Yes, this project took far too long to come this far. The reasons have nothing to do with a garden or a referendum. It is a complicated project being built on a complicated land site, while children stay in the old school, while the town piles on other wish-list items such as a lighted and turfed FIFA regulation-sized soccer pitch.
I want this school to get built as soon as possible. But what I refuse to abide is sloppy, greedy governance by our elected representatives.
Toni,
The FOIA specifically allows the boards to go into executive sessions to review details of a construction when doing so publicly would adversely impact the price of the construction.
See below of full reference, but most importantly this allowed purpose under executive sessions:
D) discussion of the selection of a site or the lease, sale or purchase of real estate by the state or a political subdivision of the state when publicity regarding such site, lease, sale, purchase or construction would adversely impact the price of such site
https://portal.ct.gov/foi/regulations/the-foi-act/section-1200-formerly-sec-118a–definitions
(6) “Executive sessions” means a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes: (A) Discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting; (B) strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency or a member thereof, because of the member’s conduct as a member of such agency, is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled; (C) matters concerning security strategy or the deployment of security personnel, or devices affecting public security; (D) discussion of the selection of a site or the lease, sale or purchase of real estate by the state or a political subdivision of the state when publicity regarding such site, lease, sale, purchase or construction would adversely impact the price of such site, lease, sale, purchase or construction until such time as all of the property has been acquired or all proceedings or transactions concerning same have been terminated or abandoned; and (E) discussion of any matter which would result in the disclosure of public records or the information contained therein described in subsection (b) of section 1-210.
The town is not buying or leasing land.
It is a purchase of real estate through construction. Construction is clearly covered in clause D.
HVAC VS GEOTHERMAL
$10 million saving !
A NO BRAINER
What I meant to say there was CONVENTIONAL HVAC vs GEO-THERMAL
Bravo, Lee and Liz! Enough of the stall tactics and unsubstantiated claims of “savings” which can be achieved. The LLSBC was packed with professionals who know about design and construction of schools AND commercial properties—in contrast to the opponents. Schools are expensive. Sustainability is expensive.
Town athletic fields are expensive and, though not part of the Ed Specs, remain part of the cost. Why is that, Mr. P&R Commission Chair? If the P&R Commission wants budget to build fields, why wasn’t it in last three the town budget reviews?
Pre-construction (2023): two athletic fields. Post-construction (2027): two athletic fields. Simple as that.
As Chair of the Parks & Rec Commission, do you only represent sports or all recreation activities for Westporters? I ask because your simple math above omitted a recreational area. Technically it is -3+2 = -1.
What is being pointed out is the new school budget includes funding for Parks & Rec fields, which they believe is misleading and would like transparency for. As an example, who funded the turf field at Saugatuck (that by the way is not used by SES at recess, etc.)? Answer: This was not part of a school improvement budget.
David ! It’s not your money.. it’s the tax payers. Sustainability is expensive, sometimes too expensive. And in this case it is far too expensive, and switching it delays absolutely nothing.
The saving of about $10 million to do conventional hvac instead of the far far more expensive option of Geo -thermal is not chump change.
And once more it delays nothing at all.
Please do not spend my money like it’s your own !
Look at you on parks n rec with your gas powered recent equipment lease.. hardly sustainability.
So you need not comment on sustainability.
Where is the field in your last 3 budget reviews? Huh ?
Doing geo thermal was always in question because of the expense. The committee said that long ago.
And rightly so.
On top of that the new build with new “state of the art” Mercedes insulation and windows means the eventual cost savings borne of Geo thermal , are far less dramatic, so the ROI on geothermal is abysmal.
When Lee Caney came to a BOE meeting earlier in the process and said that we needed that ball field, that told us his priority and sealed the fate of the gardeners. He should have recused himself from the BOF consideration of the project. I personally don’t expect enough signatures to be gathered to bring this to a referendum, but the abject hysteria from the sports daddies has been amusing.
There’s a lot of silence on why a LLSC was manufactured, rather than using the Public Site and Building Commission.
I’ll be eating my popcorn when the inevitable lawsuits create inevitable delays. The lesson for the kids here should be, “if you treat other people as if they don’t matter, don’t be surprised at how they respond.”
“The public rose in a standing ovation to applaud the entire Westport community pulling together to bring this project to fruition. It was a feel-good moment, celebrating the power of a small-town community uniting to achieve big things” is pretty fatuous. But I guess it is better than saying they were cheering for a 4% tax increase.
The unfortunate truth is that residents don’t pay all that much attention to local politics unless they have skin in the game. Unfortunately, when the tax bills hits, then people will start paying attention.
As a member of the RTM from District 7 where Long Lots sits, I want to thank Lee and Liz, for writing this piece to clarify the process for the public.
Bottom line is that most members of the public are not qualified to dig in to whether or not a building should have geo-thermal or what kinds of materials should be used. Westport residents elected members of our Boards, Commissions and the RTM to do that. They are the ones that spend the hours it takes to be familiar with projects such as this and hear from experts. Members of the public DO have lots of opportunities to attend these meetings, too. There was only the one executive session of the RTM that had more specific line items so that we could be informed when we needed to vote to approve the expenditure. There are good reasons why it is not legally required for that to be available to the public. However, if they had attended the multitude of various other meetings that occurred over the last 2 years, they would have heard the discussions about how the LL Building Committee got to the final design and estimated cost.
This Petition will cost the town time and money to organize a vote for the referendum if enough signatures are gathered, enough people will then have to actually come out and vote for the referendum in order for it to be completed, this will all delay the project further, AND the result will be the same. No one wants to pay more taxes, but most of the residents understand that these kinds of upgrades to some of our old schools is necessary. This will not take away from possible future renovations of other schools. Finally, I don’t think the public would support building a school in this day and age that is NOT net-zero and does NOT utilize sustainable systems and materials. THAT would be totally irresponsible – if we are going to spend the money, it should be an investment in our future.
I elect people to various Boards of Finance and the RTM and then they meet in “Executive Session” where they hold meetings behind closed doors as if they have more knowledge than the voters who elected them in the first place. How arrogant. They were secret meetings and they were a disgrace. The long explanations and rationalizations for their actions was a failure which I refuse to accept. Period.
This just in. In addition to this 4% tax increase, Westport stands to lose one of its largest tax payers which accounts for about 3.5% of the total property tax collected by the town.
There was a Public Utilities Regulatory Authority hearing today on the acquisition of Aquarion by a quasi-public new entity (Regional Water Authority/AWA).
It was a shocker for me. A sticker-shocker to be exact. It has to do with local property tax and was likely the reason many local town leaders were on the call protesting the deal, declaring a lack of transparency and a rushed decision by the state legislature.
If Aquarion is acquired by RWA/AWA, the new utility would not be required to pay local taxes.
Aquarion is Westport’s fourth largest tax payer, accounting for about 3.5% of the town’s total property tax revenue. (Aquarion has a 2024 assessed value of about $40.5 million, which would equate to about $7.6 million in taxes using the 25/26 million rate of $18.86 per $1,000).
So in addition to the 4% tax increase that will be borne by Westport taxpayers for the new elementary school, Westport stands to lose a significant chunk of its tax base in the short term if the Aquarion deal go through.
It is something the BOF could have mentioned in light of their willingness to raise taxes so effortlessly.
Toni,
Your numbers are not adding up again.
A $40M assessed value does not equate to $7.6M in taxes. You are off by a factor of 10. It is only $754K.
But hey, if you want to keep lying about the tax impact of Long Lots project, why stop at only 4% tax increase! And now, I see that you want to add other unrelated and unconfirmed burdens to this critical project.
Your petition to reduce the appropriation from $103M to $90M only hurts the project by delaying work, and could end up costing even more in the end due to high inflation and uncertainty in the market.
I hope Westport residents don’t fall for this petition scam.
I stand corrected, Joe, but not deterred. It’s “only” $754K.
Let’s add Coleytown at, say, another 4%. And the police/fire at probably 2-3%. And general inflation in wages, health care, energy and, yes, even grass seed for those athletic fields. Not to mention lawsuits that are surely to happen one way or another over the consequences of a bad zoning text amendment.
Taxes are going up. The BOF wants to cut pennies to Earthplace and public transportation but turns a blind eye to imposing ridiculous tax burden without due scrutiny from the public.
I urge every taxpayer and funding body member to listen to the inimitable and former BOF Chair Brian Stern at his last BOF meeting on Feb 7, 2024.
https://play.champds.com/westportct/event/476
Start at minute 19:00. He discusses the big picture of the upcoming tax burdens in Westport.
Win or lose, a public referendum is not a scam. It is the public’s most basic right.
Shame on you, Joe. As a citizen of the United States and a taxpayer in the town of Westport, you are deriding the rights of others at a time when Democracy is in free fall. It starts at home, Joe.
Toni, I am not ashamed to call your lies and dishonesty. This petition solves nothing in the grand scheme of things, and its purpose is only meant to hurt the Long Lots new school construction by delaying it and causing further escalation of costs. Your explanation for this petition has been a bunch of incoherent messages coupled with exaggerated tax increases and lies. Democracy is perfect in its imperfection, and one day there shall be a truly valid reason for a petition. This petition was motivated by vengeance and dishonesty. And that’s how it should be remembered.
Please articulate one lie I have told so that I can further document your comments as a malicious disregard of the truth = libelous.