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 The Collier assessment has been superseded.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.