Editor’s note: Yulee Aronson, a Westport-based professional engineer with 40 years of experience in the construction industry, submitted for publication an analysis of the next planning steps for a new Long Lots Elementary School.
He previously has worked on large school construction projects, including Staples High School in the early 2000s and reconstruction of the Cribari bridge over the Saugatuck River 30 years ago. More recently, he completed work on reconstruction of LaGuardia airport and the Baltimore Potomac tunnel. Currently, he is involved with construction of a Metro-North Railroad connection to Penn Station.
_______________________________________
So, what are the next steps for the Long Lots Elementary School construction project?
As our various governing boards and town bodies are taking the necessary steps advancing this project, I’d like to remind everyone that the next procurement step in this process is to hire the design firm through the competitive Request For Proposal (RFP) process.
Svigals + Partners architects is the firm that completed the feasibility study, or Phase I, as it is referenced in their contract. The contract goes on to say:
Additionally, the contract states:
Phase I scope of services has been completed. The next step for the town is to competitively bid and hire a firm to complete the design, or Phase II, as was mentioned in the above.
Although the feasibility study issued by the consultants provided a recommendation, it has also demonstrated by omission that there are other options worth considering.
During public hearings many respected professionals have pointed out that the time and scope limitations of the feasibility study didn’t allow professionals to “dive into details” of various options. Here are a few examples that come to mind:
A. The cost of renovation provided in the report is based on the very conservative replacement and construction phasing assumptions that had to be made because there was no time provided in the process to really study how to renovate an occupied school while keeping costs down.
Historically, such renovations, once fully designed, planned and constructed, are less expensive than new construction and generate higher reimbursement rates for the town from the state, resulting in lower tax burden on the residents.
B. The project site currently houses elementary school, athletic fields, and community gardens. Considering the limitations of a single-idea-generation process of the study, the options developed by the Phase I consultants and presented by the School Building Committee are deficient in taking into consideration the interests of all parties that occupy the property.
The committee’s recommended solution proposes elimination of the open space that is currently occupied by the community gardens and moving them offsite. Removing the gardens not only changes the land use to one that is more environmentally impactful to the neighborhood, but it also destroys the valuable eco system that was created over the course of the last 20 years.
Over the course of public hearings, there were several alternative “new school” solutions presented by various professionals that live in town. These solutions consisted of a new school building of the same size and shape as used in the study, athletic fields of the size and shape used in the study, and the community gardens that remain in place with less environmental impact on the neighbors. An example of such an option has been presented by the licensed architect, Patricia Chen, AIA.
This layout maintains all existing uses on site while providing more protection to the neighbors from unwanted noise and light pollution while allowing more rainwater to be absorbed in place during construction and beyond. Also, during construction, a controlled and safe fenced-in passageway would be created to separate all users during the construction period.
Considering that the Long Lots Elementary School project may become the most expensive single project in Westport’s history, I urge all residents who care about our fiscal future as well as how we treat our fellow Westporters to call on your elected officials and our governing bodies to make sure that this next step of the competitive RFP process takes place and is not only competitive in terms of price for services but also in terms of ideas.
Based on Aronson’s well reasoned analysis and critique, it would be irresponsible for the town to barge ahead with phase II without considering all options. Chen’s solution, for example, is compelling.
I appreciate the thoughts from other professionals in the community, but please be aware that the suggestions that are being proposed have already been evaluated by the LLSBC and were rejected. Why? These layouts don’t take into account the actual topography of the land. What looks like it works on a flat piece of paper is actually not feasible unless you do massive earthwork at an even larger expense and at a likely detriment to neighbors in terms of water drainage. The parking in the rear is a 15 ft lower elevation and would not have line of sight access from the school so it is a safety hazard. The parking lot doesn’t allow us to bring more cars off Hyde Lane during morning and afternoon pickup. The playgrounds are positioned on a 10+ foot elevation change with a major town drainage pipe running under it. There is no access to the gardens without going around the ballfield. The proposed staging area is not sufficient to complete the new school and isn’t sufficient for keeping the school fully functional during construction. I will reiterate that the decision is not between gardens and multipurpose field. The decisions are for building the new school, provide appropriate staging areas, to operate the existing school during construction, and to do the required drainage for the whole property. After that is done, the land uses for fields or gardens have been recommended to maximize what is left. There is not a way to leave the gardens and not significantly impact the school construction timeline and costs. Others ask about the cost, this is just feasibility, we aren’t going to the BoF for $100mil. We are asking for money for design that would provide the actual budget ask for a new school. The $100mil has conservative contingencies in it and also doesn’t account for any state or utility incentives.
Mr. P: How about just renovate or build a school that is appropriate for the town (which is likely to be smaller than the one you proposed) and let others worry about athletic fields.
$100 million includes a lot of unnecessary costs like relocating gardens and building out of scope state-of-the-art Parks and Rec facilities without a needs assessment. On top of an over-the-top trophy school.
I do believe staging is an excuse to remove the gardens. There are options you are not willing to explore.
I am watching a major sewer project being built in my neighborhood; low and behold they are largely staging off site. Piles of soil and gravel coming and going and coming again; pipes of various sizes, construction equipment that can dig trenches 20 feet deep or more, all the while allowing safe passage to residents of the neighborhoods. True it is not a school building, but it also spans miles of all matter of terrain throughout residential neighborhoods and involves work on or near private property. Highly complex.
They are staging at Winslow. You know what? We don’t like it, and we don’t like the constant truck traffic on our street. But we are living with it to get sewers, we haven’t had to erase any town treasure, and we have a very responsive DPW manager who returns our calls regularly.
I didn’t propose a school size, the Board of Education specifications define that. They can always revise their specs and we will adjust, but we have repeatedly said the removal of 5 classrooms (one section per grade) does not significant impact the building footprint or the construction/staging needs. I am focused on rebuilding a school and that eliminates all the fields and gardens from the property during construction of the new school while maintaining a fully functional school. I honest don’t care about what goes back on the property after the school is built.
I just want to make sure people who are unable to attend town meetings and only get information through local media are hearing information from those who are actually working on the project on behalf of the town (with direction from town bodies for needs of the property and input from neighbors) and not just the opinion of garden supporters.
Input from neighbors? Those I talk to on a fairly regular basis don’t think you have listened to their input.
Let me just say that though I am a gardener, I am speaking as a town resident and taxpayer when I say your committee has been unresponsive not only to gardeners, but also to neighbors, architect and engineering professionals, and residents in general who think you have gone beyond the pale in devising this plan to eradicate a treasured green space in a less than transparent, and largely arrogant manner.
The “gardeners” as you call us, has evolved into a very large group of concerned Westport residents, the majority of whom are not members of the community garden. They care about the garden, sure, but more importantly, they care about the lack of transparency, the impact on the neighborhood, the price tag of this project, the seeming railroading of a point of view, and failure to properly assess all implications of your actions. Facts matter.
I respectfully disagree with your perspective.
Thank you for your honest response. My article is not about the gardens and as I have previously stated, I’m not a gardener and do not have any “hidden agenda” as you suggested in some of your remarks. My point is about the need to follow the competitive procurement process when it comes to spending public funding. It is your off-hand remark – “We are asking for money for design that would provide the actual budget ask for a new school” that is a problem here. For context, the cost of design and construction management would be close to 10 million dollars. Has your committee been empowered to sidestep this process and appropriate 10 million without competitive procurement? If so, please provide evidence and advise how the lack of competitive procurement would be seen by the State and the Feds from whom Westport would be seeking reimbursement. The conversation about which option is best for the town would be resolved when other qualified design firms would be allowed to compete on cost of design and projected costs of construction for their respective designs. The further we look down this rabbit hole, the scarier it gets.
It is up to the residents of this town to make sure that what you suggest, as a possibility never ever ever happens. That they might conveniently overlook that which is in their own first contract. Oh no, they never would… lol.
I will say after the longshore inn, I have long been an advocate for public bids… in other words, all $$ amounts are submitted in public and at the same moment so there is no opportunity to alert an under offer or in fact an over bidder that they can change their bid.
This is how it is done in Europe.
We are no stranger to highest and best. It’s newer here. And rife with corruption.
In public ! No way to lie. No corruption.
It’s the only way to keep it all honest. That way may the best man win instead of the buddy
So many questions. Thank you Mr. Aronson for persevering with your analysis, which the town has repeatedly refused to consider.
I am increasingly convinced there is an unnecessary and inexplicable rush to move this project forward without considering all legitimate and valid options that have not yet been deliberated. It is the largest capital project in the history of our town. Can we make sure we get it right?
Keep in mind the BOE itself now has doubts about the veracity of the proposed school project. New enrollment data does not support such a large elementary school. The district has not done an adequate job of assessing overall capacity issues to ensure the new school it builds is the right school. More than one BOE member stated in their public meeting that the proposed Long Lots building is likely “too big.”
Also, I am curious why the town or LLSBC Committee will not answer my question about competitive bidding for Phase 2 (when will Phase 2 RFQs be posted, for example). One of the the town attorneys informed me the town is not required to answer citizen questions about town business.
We are not side stepping any steps and haven’t suggested we were in any of my comments. We are going through the process the BoF and the rest of town bodies require.
Will Phase 2 be competitively bid?
Toni, it might if we keep a watchful eye on things… if we don’t they never had a seconds intention of a rebid !!!!!
Think longshore and how the inn was conveniently handed over to a group of investors in a fund, I largely suspect is comprised of yours truly , who then got the dream lease of the century !
I mean literally outrageous.. yet as soon as I for one started muddying the waters and inquiring.. we had a self serving wisemen’s broadcast on how A-MAZING it all was for us the tax payer !!!!!
My ass ! We are all paying for this nonsense.
But that is done and some fund ( not largely delamar) has control of the inn…
But anyhow… a very very watchful eye is all that will stop further clown shows.
They had no intention of sharing a re bid.. I mean who are we kidding.
Good morning, Sri,
I appreciate your engagement on this subject matter.
The proper competitive RFP steps for Phase 2 design would be:
1. Town’s Procurement department, with the input from the subject matter experts (SME) such as Public Site Committee, prepares and issues the RFP.
Note: If LLSBC was such an SME body, it would then be your committee’s input.
2. RFP is issued.
3. Proposals are received and are evaluated by the SME and the Procurement.
4. Selection recommendation is provided to the First Selectwoman.
5. First Selectwoman makes her request to the BOF using the cost proposal amount from the selected RFP responder.
I ask myself, why did you (an experienced professional) provide such a misleading response – We are not side stepping any steps and haven’t suggested we were in any of my comments. We are going through the process the BoF and the rest of town bodies require.
I only see two possible explanations:
You are a technical expert who is not familiar with the procurement process, but then why aren’t you? You have colleagues on your committee who have done this before. I know this because I’ve worked with at least 3 of them on the Staples renovation and more importantly, two of them are the RTMs.
Then, I conclude that you are familiar with the process but think that we are not. How does that make me feel?
So, I ask the Westport Taxpayers – what do we do now that we know what they think of us?
If your readers haven’t already, I respectfully ask that they read Larry Weisman’s and my letter in Dan Woog’s 06880 blog wherein we asked for the return of good governance and fair play by treating the school project and the garden v ball field discussion as separate issues. If after public input from all parties, they cannot be separated, so be it. But, until then, the ensuing division in our community is distressing, unnecessary and disappointing. Our letter is signed by over three hundred residents from all over town who otherwise have no common affiliation apart from requesting that our leaders do better. Ken Bernhard
Hmmm.
So much for transparency eh.
Not that any of us is surprised.
I believe as a resident you are allowed to ask as many questions as you please about town business and be given an appropriate answer/request. After all, ALL town business without exception is OUR business.
Course we all know too well that the town doesn’t like to be questioned on anything whatsoever.
But in this case I believe the town attorney is positively incorrect.
Your question should be answered and quickly.
I have just completed a home renovation in Fairfield.
I was going to knock the house down ( although I loved it) and had been told my numerous contractors and architects it is cheaper to start from scratch.
I paid for a design/plan and spoke with a few contractors.
The price I got back for 3,000 sq feet new construction, 1.2 million.
So I decided to work with what I had.
I removed some walls, I created jack and Jill bathrooms (2) a master bedroom(1) and a powder room.
I installed 100 led lights, a brand new heating and air conditioning system, a new kitchen( minus appliances not incl) I created a laundry room, and a small mud room. All in the same footprint.
A concrete floor with about 35% under floor heating to supplement the heating system as concrete floors are cold.
An enormous brand new deck, new doors throughout and about 20% of windows had to be replaced.
And I managed the project myself using the best priced subs who came highly recommended. It was a dream. I had no disappointments.
Without kichen appliances and the new roof I am going to need to still do, ( those will be 20k max for appliances, and possibly 15k for the roof) so far I am 120k in.
So I’ll be at a little more than 100 psf in the end.
I’m going to be completely finished for a grand total of less than 160k. A 5 bedroom, 3 .5 bathrooms, 2000 sq feet.
Renovation is a fraction of new construction.
That I can now state factually.
Anyway, back to long lots.
The residents have spoken out loud and clear.
Alternatives must be looked at, lest we forget the neighbors can still choose to, if they so wish, delay the school( which I’m sure they do not want to) by going to court.
I imagine that might be a 2-3 year delay.
As for the rfq, now that is going to be very interesting.
And no doubt keenly watched and FOIA’d, as is our right.
My guess .. they had no intention whatsoever of bidding it out again.
Maybe now a little scrutiny from us nosy residents, might sharpen pencils, and save us on tax dollars.
My final comment is on staging area.
There does not have to be one.
Where do large projects stage in Manhattan ? Not on the property..
no staging area required.
Fact is over the last 3 plus years over summers the school should have been renovated.. section by section.
Maybe that can still happen.
Ciara
What troubles me most and what baffles me, is why the administration resists, indeed refuses, to subject then plan recommended by its hand-picked committee to further scrutiny by the public and by qualified professionals.
What are they afraid of?
Is not the goal of the entire exercise to produce a plan for a well-designed school on a well-engineered site at the lowest available cost to the taxpayers; and if so, isn’t it so apparent as to be beyond dispute that the more people who participate in the process, the more it is studied, and the more ideas are received from qualified professionals, the more likely it is that the result will be better than otherwise.
And finally, a project of this size and probable cost must have the widest possible public support. That can only be achieved if the planning process is seen to have been transparent, to have included all of the stakeholders, and to have been carefully conceived and thoroughly reviewed. Sad to say, none of those goals can be said to have been achieved in this instance.
If I were building a house I would want to be involved in every step of the planning process. I would want to be certain that all feasible alternatives had been explored, that I was getting the best available advice, and that the finished product would be as good as it can be and fairly priced. Why should our expectations for a municipal project be any different?