Clarence Hayes has lived in Westport for 6 years. A senior vice president in global technology at Bank of America, he manages its user-facing data networks, and associated $225 million budget.
He has crunched the numbers on the Long Lots Elementary School project. Clarence writes:
The Board of Education and Long Lots School Building Committee need to convince the voters of Westport, via a public detailed document, why “Repair and Properly Maintain” is not an option for Long Lots.
Principal and interest on a $100 million new school at today’s AAA muni rates is around $6 million a year, for 30 years. Taxes will go up.
Other town investments will be squeezed by the pressure on the budget. The voters deserve to understand how we came to the original decision.
This section of Long Lots Elementary School — originally the main entrance to the junior high school — was built in 1953.
It is “received wisdom” that repairing and maintaining the current school would be “penny wise, pound foolish” and is not an option. As an incoming RTM member (running unopposed), I am trying to discover the basis of this position.
What I have found: Based on a 2021 building assessment (Colliers), an expectation of increased enrollment, and the mismatch between original Long Lots use as a middle school vs. elementary school needs, the BOE and Board of Finance recommended the evaluation of a new school as an option.
However, the primary reason was the condition of the building (from a June 28, 2022 BOE presentation to the BOF).
Regarding building condition, I read every page of what I could find: the Colliers Assessment, and the new LLSBC-led MEP and Envelope Assessments.
These reports are the detail about the school condition. Everything else is anecdote or rumor.
The picture they paint is of buildings which are energy inefficient, not all built to the highest construction standards, and not consistently maintained over the years with timely quality repair.
The Colliers Assessment states they have not done invasive inspection, and they pass no judgment on structural issues. They state that fuller assessments should be done.
This wing — the current main entrance — was added in the 1970s.
Those fuller assessments are the MEP and Envelope reports done by LLSBC consultants. The Collier assessment has been superseded.
The new, deeper MEP and Envelope reports include “repair” sections. If you read these, you will find that here is only one serious problem: The pre-1970s buildings have negative pressurization, which is the cause of excess humidity.
This excess humidity contributes to other defects. Remediation requires the installation of a ventilation system, which could be done during the summer, for $4.2 million.
Other than this, everything else is normal maintenance repairs, and not the same scale of expense. Those minor items add up, presumably to several million dollars more, but they were not priced out fully.
The façade report lists 16 items, each of which is relatively insubstantial and the kind of repair you would expect in normal quality maintenance: “fix the broken glass over door 13,” “clean the stucco outside the music room,” etc.
The roofing report lists 18 repair items, prefaced with the comment “the roofing system is under repair for the next 5 years” so route through the warranty and demand performance. These items are also normal maintenance: “replace loose fasteners,” “wrinkled cap sheets should be replaced (warranty),” etc.
The structural report is shorter: Seal the cracks in the brick masonry, clean the stucco at the music wing. The report states there are no imminent structural risks.
Long Lots Elementary School. (Drone photo/Brandon Malin)
These recommendations come with the preface that the consultants were asked how to keep the building in good condition for “5-10 years,” pending new construction. But the analyses are not limited to a “5-10 years” time frame.
The recommendations look like one major investment (ventilation) and catch-up maintenance, which provide for an indefinite future life for the buildings. They do not state that this work gets you only 5-10 years, but after that the buildings will be irreparable and the town will be faced with massive new expenditures.
The conclusion I come away with from these reports is that repairs in the sub- $10 million one-time range will catch up for the failure to do proper maintenance in the past, and, if timely quality repair is continued going forward, there is no definite date when these buildings have to be replaced.
Much of the discussion appears to mix normal expected maintenance costs associated with HVAC equipment, and other aspects of the buildings. AC units and boilers are 25+ years old and near end of life. That is part of the normal lifecycle, i.e. maintenance, of buildings. It is not a reason to demolish these structures and build new.
Decisions regarding these components will likely require additional investments, as is the case at all the schools. But the cost of quality maintenance and eventual replacement is part of any building operating budget.
Long Lots is clearly energy inefficient. The MEP report says a “net zero” building would use 5 times less energy. But the cost is not quantified. Is this $200,000 or $2 million per year in lower costs?
“Repair and maintain” does not promise a modern “net-zero” building with the latest architectural flourishes. But it may provide a clean, safe and entirely adequate learning environment for many decades, as it has for the past 60 years.
I intend to campaign for “repair and maintain,” making efforts to convince my fellow RTM to vote “no” on a new build, and “yes” for a heightened focus on quality maintenance to extend the life of town assets.
I do not object to higher taxes, and I am happy to change my mind. But the BOF/BOE need to make a convincing case that my interpretation of the engineering reports is wrong.
How would this address the issue of increased enrollment though? Isn’t the school too small right now?
There are multiple problems to be addressed. I am asking that each one be analyzed independently. After that, the various alternative solutions for each problem can be viewed together to identify potential cost synergies amongst the various solutions. My review of the published engineering reports is merely one view, on one issue – the building condition itself.
Increased enrollment is another issue with a few possible solutions: shift district boundaries to balance the elementary school populations; do a special carve out of students interested/willing to attend a different school, perhaps with some monetary incentive; build an addition to LLS; lease modular classrooms indefinitely pending possible evolution in enrollment; or, build a bigger new school. Each of these has its own pros/cons and associated cost.
The same goes for the other issues: energy inefficiency; boilers nearing end of life; needs raised by the BOE in their specification of what an ideal school building would offer; Stepping Stones pre-school space requirements, etc.
Analyze each on its own merits, then look for solution synergies. The result will be a complex set of options – but there will be detail for aggregate costs. It will not be a subjective ‘it feels about right’ answer.
IF ‘build new/renovate as new’ comes out as an optimal solution to solve all problems, at the overall lowest cost – I’m all for it.
I just want to see the analysis. Show me the details.
Clarence may want to update his LinkedIn: Clarence Hayes,
Head of Access Networks and Authentication Services
Bank of America…..SVP? Global? BofA, one of the worst predatory financial institutions out there
Seriously ? What an uncivilized thing to say ? I take it you are one of the advocates for the land grab ? Quel surprise !
Time you look in the mirror and realize the rest of us don’t want to pay for ONLY school fields in Westport…
If you don’t like the Westport school system, move or go to GFA
As a Westporter almost from birth, a long lots graduate, Staples too, and a builder of fairly large buildings in the U.S. and Europe- I find this piece reasonably convincing.
Where the gentleman earns his living, B of A, has nothing to do with common sense. I have lived part of the year in London for 25 years- in a 300 year old house. I spend money on it every year or so- all new windows this year and some annual plumbing, electrical and HVAC fixes are to be expected, but the basic guts are strong. I think we could save the town 75-85% of the $100 million and have a fine school for 50 more years.
Why the rush to spend big money? Our town and our people have more pressing needs than to bin a useful building.
For that matter ROSALIND, every financial institution out there is predatory. It’s the nature of the beast.
A bit like every school system sucks the $$$$$ out of the resident tax payers. Not sure what your rude comment was for other than there’s a soccer player in your house you’d like us all to pay for !
Has there every been a Westport proprietor that the town would more than enjoy following their failure?
Pick your battles Savior of Main Street.
Hi Rosalind – I don’t know Clarence at all but I assume you do? Unless I’m misreading your comment you are making the charge that he is a willing cog in a predatory machine called BofA, an organization of 200,000+ employees most of them in America. That seems like a bit of a stretch?
I have no interested in defending BofA (full disclosure I happen to accidentally have a checking account there due to M&A that used to be my BankBoston Staff account in the early 1990’s.)
I’m just interested to hear what you know about Clarence that leads you to your conclusion and if there isn’t any information about his character or other disqualifying factors why you would attack someone who has clearly bothered to do the work on this and is trying to save the Westport taxpayers $80m upfront for the life of the new school bond?
This is at a time when I’m told that current proposed capital improvement projects may take town debt from $100m (not including LLES) to around $400m?
Please feel free to enlighten me?…
Thank you Mr Hayes for offering the first cogent summary of the costs related to new vs renovate. Upgrading the existing structure and maintaining the existing footprint is appealing on several dimensions. Certainly the much lower capital cost for those, such as myself, who don’t see the logic in needlessly raising taxes-which is exactly what a $100M new school and related debt will cause. I also ask why no one has shown the current capacity utilization for all FIVE elementary schools? Surely some schools could take on more students to better balance the need. OR perhaps close a school and the related operating cost to help build this new expanded capacity school at Long Lots. I realize some believe a new school is appealing, perhaps cloaked by a perceived better educational experience. Why no one has shared a longer term view of overall school capacity, and presented a detailed review of the new vs renovate costs is incredulous. Com’n Westport. Be Better!
Just so there is no misunderstanding, there is a ‘new vs renovate’ option detailed in the LLSBC study. It is labeled ‘renovate as new’ and means that the end state meets all the requirements specified for a ‘new build’. But it is done by basically gutting the building down to bare structural elements and rebuilding everything. This is in the feasibility study and comes out in the same $100MM range.
When I say ‘repair and maintain’, I mean make the buildings clean, comfortable, and usable – but subject to the current space layout and energy inefficiency – while also leaving replacement of boilers and AC to a future decision when they are fully end of life (which they have not yet reached).
Since Long Lots was built, there have already been two additions (with one replacing a fireproof all-steel wing that vandals burnt down). I would hope that any additional construction would preserve the architectural integrity of the school and not look like a late addition.
All good points. This underscores the need for the Town to require a second opinion by another set of consultants like it’s customarily done with all major expenditures.
Yulee, There was NO second opinion? These people were going to spend 100+ million dollars with NO second opinion? I bet they get a second opinion when they get their car fixed or their house painted! This is absurd!
Once again Yulee is correct! School attendance over the years ebbs and flows. Taking a belt and suspenders approach to reviewing it before spending a lot of money makes the most sense. Not sure what Ms. Pullman’s remarks about BofA have to do with anything related to this particular blog.
Finally someone sees that a new school at 100 million or 160 million is a total waste of money! There’s something very strange about pushing through this massive cost and wasting now 80 million dollars. So fixing Long Lots is 10 million? Let’s double that to 20 million. 100-20= 80. There you go, an 80 million dollar savings and the gardens are saved. I could NEVER buy the argument that the school had to be demolished before it was 70 years old!
Jack, absolutely the only way to go has always been renovation not a new build. But the same administration has instructed the firm they hired to come up with over inflated Reno vs new build prices.
So none of it is believable. And we are all expected to do a Barbie on it and say…. Ohhhh wow. How incredibly strange it’s cheaper to knock down, haul away, pay to discard/dump, than rebuild. Em not !
No doubt in my mind a Reno is a lot cheaper to do by tens of millions. But sure, it’s Westport, what’s 20 million- when it’s tax payers money.
I’ve done countless projects in Westport and elsewhere. I’ve a ton of construction experience.
Reno is always cheaper than starting from scratch.
Alas there are other hidden agendas at play here. A FOIA of all info will be interesting.
can someone calculate the tax increase on each taxpayer in town ? can we request a number for building new versus Reno ?
Mr. Hayes assessment may seem on the frugal side, but as he shows a lot of verification and options have not been studied or discussed. I would also bet this proposed estimate of 100 million comes in at bid time as 120-130 million and cost over runs and change orders will put this total cost of about $150 million. Yep 50% more! This town is starting to spend like a “drunken sailor”!
The property owners here have always made Westports somewhat reasonable taxes a big reason they have chosen Westport for their investment in the residential and commercial properties here. Education, learning and does not proportionaly follow how much is spent on facilities especially when the “disposable” attitude and emphasis on constructing new because “it looks better”. The debt “tidal wave” is going to break on America in the next 10 – 20 years and we better have a stronger look at “cost/ benefit ” and VALUE before we drown ourselves with “not so smart spending”.Remember in public works projects today most architects, engineers, contractors and project managers seem to have a strong slant towards low ball estimates and not committed to true pre- project value and cost controls.
To my fellow Westporters I caution “CAVEAT EMPTOR”!!
Not getting a second opinion is bases for a court to order a stay on this wild spending! Go to court to get at least one more opinion and delve into how this organization got the SOLE privilege to give the ONLY valuation for a new school and the determination that Long Lots must be demolished. I’m getting very bad vibes here!
Well now, Ray, it seems the soccer dads are deciding the fate of the gardens, incognito( baseball=soccer) of course. Under the initial until a day or two ago, babe Ruth, but then the truth comes out !
And we all just get to pay for it. Eh no thank you.
Well maybe we just plain and simple don’t want to pay for it. Did that occur to anyone. Ever occur to you we do not need to expect the tax payers in Westport to keep adding to the school budget.
Maybe we the tax payer, are tired of footing the ever, over improving of unnecessarily extravagant facilities. Already one of the most spendy school districts in America.
I suggest a massive reign in on this profligate spending with no regard for trampling over other “tax”paying citizens.
I for one am getting very tired of this
Land grab, profligate spending of tax payers money, trampling on tax payers rights, shady practices with zero transparency, a few soccer dads objecting…( by no means the majority of the town)
Eh I smell a rat.
A nasty self serving agenda that I certainly am not interested in being forced to pay for
Thank you Mr Hayes for the good sense approach to the Long Lots school replacement or the my way or the highway spending. The unnecessary spending has been pushed down the taxpayers thought I get the feeling that some woman was promised her name on the $100 plus million monument
I was a teacher for 33 years. A quality education boils down to two factors, 1) Quality educators and 2) Supportive parents who are in involved in their child’s learning! With those two factors, students can get a good education in a barn.
I do recall (from the Community Gardens discussion 20 years ago) that part of the lower level at Long Lots is problematic. At the time it was linked to health issues having to do with mold/water. At the time, teachers were getting sick, and one of the classrooms was closed up. Not saying that remediation/maintenance is not the answer, but focusing (again) on human health.
It’s Joey Kaempfer, again. I apologize, I must be getting old, but I failed to mention that I was part of a small team that rebuilt the American School in London a few years ago. We had no gardens to build on so we had to stay put. But we managed to rebuild/renovate a school with 1250 full-time students, while still operating and extracting asbestos and some lead. We did this for £25 million. If we had had a place to “house” our kids in the interim, so we could have demolished and built from scratch, it would have cost 5X the £25 million figure.
We now have a solid school that works well and is larger than the original. Incidentally our playing fields weren’t contiguous but a 15 minute bus ride for our athletes. This was never a real hardship.
If we feel the money we can save is burning a hole in our combined pockets- there are many great ways to spend $75 or $80+ million around the town. How about expanding the Playhouse and integrating it into the school curriculums; raising teachers salaries (Harvard started with people sitting around a tree and in one room with no a/c, or lunch program; how about a trust fund that gives or lends college money to our neediest kids without interest. The list of items that can make Westport a richer, kinder and yet more remarkable town is long. A new, but unnecessary building at , shouldn’t even be on the list.
Joey, Want more ideas? How about a mini bus service to ease traffic congestion? How about enhancing security in existing schools since the world has become such a dangerous place? How about offering free tutoring for those students who absolutely need it? How about installing 30 or 40 speed cameras in town to make the town safer and have an additional benefit of earning money via fines? Anyone else want to chime in?
The town of Norwalk is building TWO new elementary schools that have a COMBINED price tag of less than $100Million excluding land acquisition costs. Peer review and 2nd opinions MUST be a required for ALL such significant capital investments as would be required in any normal business decisions and this is the LARGEST capital expenditure that the town is proposing to-date.
Ms. Pullman are you familiar with capitalism? As far as the school goes it seems the town wants a Choate built for elementary students.
Why did Ms Tooker jump on the idea of a brand new extremely expensive school so quickly, and not ask or recommend a second opinion? She wouldn’t get her house painted unless she got a couple of quotes, so why spend 120 million without another quote to compare? And Ciara is correct when she said renovating is always cheaper? If your brakes don’t work in your car, you don’t junk it and buy an expensive Tesla!
Parker Harding Plaza parking project moving forward against a large group of residents and merchants who know it is a failed design and another big fiscal boondoggle without even fixing the problems there. How about using dollars that can be saved on responsible projects instead of the money that will be wasted on poorly thought out projects like LLS and Parker Hardimg and build the parking structure needed on Elm Street and create a parking solution that better serves downtown Westport and creates a beautiful riverfront area and public space and still has a two way cut through acess that flows without the crazy one way obstical course the consultants and a select group of Town officials have come up with. It just has bad written all over it!
Bravo, Clarence Hayes, for bringing to light more compelling reasons to explore renovation completely (since it sounds from this analysis that it hasn’t been). As a realtor (and as someone going through my own messy renovations vs. rebuilding, even though rebuild would have been way easier) I applaud this attempt to lead by example, in a conservation sense – what good is showing our kids how to use metal drinking straws and recycle some soda cans if we continue to demonstrate “the toilet mentality” choosing a mammoth, costly, disruptive project like this one without fully exhausting every restoration option – especially when less disruptive to the school year(s), the neighbors, the beloved community garden and the surrounding eco system, costs way less, helps keep taxes down, but ALSO produce far fewer piles of rubble and toxic mess at the dump in the end ? The new state of the art building sounds fabulous and impressive on paper, but also teaches our children to just dump everything that needs fixing and buy new ! What kind of net zero is this?
Awesome as some younger Gens might say.
Westport residents and TAX PAYERS are coming to realize and EXPRESS that spending bigger with less thoughtful planning and VALUE ANALYSIS lacks common sense and fiscal responsibility.
Westport schools are not better because we spend more they are great because they DO MORE!
Joe Strickland-
As Chairman of the Public Site and Building Commission I would offer that the Town already has a mechanism in place to render or coordinate a second opinion….the PSBC. The PSBC has participated in such projects as the Levitt Pavilion, the Senior Center, the Library, Longshore skating rink, the sailing school, the Staples reroofing project, the Staples football stands, the Gillespie Center, and others too numerous to mention. I would suggest that the First Selectwoman appoint the PSBC to facilitate the development of a second opinion. I would also recommend that the Board of Finance and RTM make no decisions without the input of the PSBC.
In the interest of transparency, it would be beneficial for Westport Public Schools to post the results of “RFQ 23-073T Long Lots Elementary School Architectural Design” which was originally issued 01/24/23. Neither the RFP [not an RFQ as suggested in the title] nor the results seem to be posted online:
https://www.westportps.org/departments/business-office/bids
Scott, That will require a FOIA request. Which you’ll likely receive an answer on by the time the current LL kids are graduating Staples. Why is transparency so difficult? Why does our town government treat the citizens of Westport as the enemy?
The RFP and responses should be posted on the town website in perpetuity. That should be such an easy thing for the town to do. However, you can actually go to this link of a 3rd party bid-marketplace to see this actual RFP. RFP Responses, not so much. https://www.bidnet.com/bneattachments?/822533977.pdf
….and I’m willing to bet that none of the intelligent voices in this comment section had input during this non-process. Once again we have to wonder about the leadership (or lack of it), coming from our current Town administration.
I welcome Mr. Hayes’ thoughts. I also welcome in particular the comments of Joe Strickland. Joe is running for the P&Z on the Coalition for Westport ticket. Mr. Hayes analysis and all the comments highlight that the discussion for Long Lots should focus on the school, not the Gardens. The Gardens should be either taken off the table or voted upon separately by the BoF and the RTM. P&Z will most likely do that. An in depth discussion of the proposed new school should receive the attention of the BoF and the RTM. The proposed school meets the academic specifications of the BoE, but within those specifications there is much to be discussed and resolved. Many above have referenced such items.
Don,
As a member of the Public Site and Buildiing Commission since Spring of 2016, I am confounded why our group of professionals was denied a request to participate on the Long Lots School project by the First Selectwomen.
As you are aware, the purpose of the PSBC (members are appointed by the First Selectwomen) is to provide oversight on Town owned projects, normally undertaken by groups with little or no design or construction experience.
Joseph Strickland, our Chairman, listed (in his above comments) some of the projects we’ve been involved over the years. The PSBC’s collective professional experience provides guidance to Town officials as they navigate the design and construction of their facilities.
The PSBC has assisted numerous Town entities, such as the Library, the Senior Center, the Gillespie Center and many town owned facilities, acting as their representatives. The PSBC provides guidance support with the design, the construction budget and the construction contracts. Typically we are involved from the early design phase through construction completion. The assistance we provide is an effort to safeguard tax payer dollars.
Lastly Don, I agree with you; construction of the new school structure has absolutely nothing to do with the Community Gardens. As we have illustrated on our two proposed alternate site plans, there is more than ample room on this site to leave the existing gardens in their current location, construct a new school and new athletic fields.
It feels like the project is full steam ahead. Mr Hayes, is there anything that can be done now to ask these questions formally before you take office? Is there anything anyone else can do? It seems to be gathering momentum yet your points are so important to consider.