Yulee Aronson is a licensed professional engineer, with 40 years of construction management and project controls experience, overseeing many high-profile and complex projects. He says, “I have never encountered a construction problem that couldn’t be overcome.”
Yulee Aronson
Locally, Aronson has worked on the reconstruction of Staples High School and the William F. Cribari Bridge, and the chlorination building at the wastewater pollution facility. Other projects include Penn Station access, the reconstruction of La Guardia Airport, and the Baltimore Potomac Tunnel replacement.
As the Board of Finance prepares to debate the Long Lots Elementary School construction project, he writes to them:
The Long Lots School Building Committee has come before you, requesting the next round of funding to commence the design based on the recommendations from the feasibility study. It appears that such a request is prematurely bypassing several important steps.
Per proper procurement protocols, such large appropriation needs to be performed following a competitive RFP process. The contract with Svigals Partner Architects — the firm that completed the feasibility study (Phase I) — notes:
In Phase II (separate contract) the Town will utilize the collective team to prepare the final design documents for the ultimate construction solution. Final Construction documents are expected to be completed by August 30, 2024. In Pase II the A/E team is expected to do the following services. While desirable to keep continuity of the A/E between phases, Phase II will be a separate RFP process.
Has the LLSBC been empowered to sidestep the proper procurement process? And how would the lack of competitive procurement be seen by the state, from whom Westport would be seeking reimbursement?
Considering that Long Lots may become the most expensive single project in Westport’s history, we need to make sure that this next step is performed with proper governance and oversight.
It is also prudent to examine how it all started, and how the scope of the authority of the LLSBC may have expanded beyond its original charter.
It began with the development and issuance of the Building Assessment Report at the end of February 2023. It was followed by the RFP process for Phase I scope, and culminated with the issuance of the contract to Svigals Partner Architects in May.
Long Lots Elementary School is 70 years old. It was designed as a junior high.
The scope of work for Phase I was limited to the conceptual design of the school building and parking.
Sometime in the summer this scope was suddenly expanded without proper authorization to include planning for the athletic facilities, based on the study performed by the Parks and Recs Department. Who placed the School Building Committee in charge of the planning for the Parks Department? A
And how is the school renovation/replacement project now required to satisfy the needs of Parks and Rec, who previously stated that they don’t have the funding to expand their facilities, yet now this expansion is going to take place as a part of the school construction budget?
The School Building Committee extended their reach by deciding to relocate the Westport Community gardens from their existing location to another site, all as a part of the school construction umbrella and budget.
The town of Westport already has a committee that deals with the town-wide design and construction projects, looking at them holistically and not through a narrow lens of a single project. Considering the complexity and the mixed use of the existing site, is the School Building Committee the best group to chart our course forward? Or should we use the resources that we already have, namely the Public Site & Building Committee?
During public hearings, many respected professionals have pointed out that the time and scope limitations of the feasibility study did not allow hired professionals to “dive into details” of various options.
Option “C,” presented as the best plan by the Long Lots School Building Committee.
Here are just 2 examples that come to mind.
- 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 no time was 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 a lower tax burden on the residents.
- There were also 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 interior layout/ adjacencies as used in the study, athletic fields of the size and shape used in the study, and the gardens that remain in place with less environmental impact on the neighbors. Such options included i)a more compact layout for the school building in the east-west direction; ii) more compacted parking lot in the same direction, and iii) a split level 3-story school with higher grade educational spaces located on the upper level in compliance with the Ed Specs.
What united these alternative options was the preservation of all of the existing uses on site, while providing more protection to the neighbors from unwanted noise and light pollution, and also allowing more rainwater to be absorbed in place during construction and beyond. In addition, all these proposals were less expensive.
In no way are the above options proposed here the “ultimate solutions.” 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, and managed by the properly authorized town committee.
Return on money spent, in my opinion, is key. Why are some proposing the most expensive project in the town’s history? What is the ultimate goal for this vast expenditure? My guess is to provide the ultimate building to facilitate learning. Will the return on money spent be worth the cost? Will student performance justify the cost? Is this enhanced performance guaranteed?
I am new to town, though I grew up here and went to Long Lots, Staples, etc.
I too have been involved in construction for decades, including many large reconstruction projects and rebuilding the American School in London- a school for 1,250 students- while it remained open and operating.
It appears, but admittedly I do not have all the facts, that much more time has been arguing publicly about the community garden than has been spent on feasibility and design.
It occurred to me that Mr. Aronson may have hit on the real reason why the new ball field “must” be at Longlots. By placing it on the school grounds the town may be trying to slip its costs
into the request for State funding. Why hasn’t this been explained in a transparent manner.
It further occurred to me that saving the garden and protecting the neighbors are of no interest to the Parks and Rec. folks and so perhaps a new study without a heavy, hidden thumb on the scales could be the first step.
Joey (Kaempfer@Mcarthurglen.Com)
The BOF members are meeting tonight to discuss this project. If you wish to share your thoughts and / or this article, below is their contact information.
Lcaney@westportct.gov
Ddobin@westportct.gov
Bstern@westportct.gov
Jhammer@westportct.gov
Mkeller@westportct.gov
Rhightower@westportct.gov
Lheyer@westportct.gov
Yulee, I have lived and paid taxes in Westport for 45 years. I will write to the board to express my concern about this misguided project. Thank you for your incisive notes in the journal and 06880. your clear explanation of the appropriate bidding process would be even more compelling. If you would kindly send copies of those publications and your comments within them to the finance board today thank you again I do appreciate all the time and energy you have taken to raise awareness in our town.
SNAFU or FUBAR⁉️
The level of incompetence and indifference is an embarrassment to Westport.
Been commenting here from the beginning. First and foremost, why isn’t renovating the current school and current footprint priority 1. At least, take a hard look and make a fully informed decision. Too many involved have shared that the projects premise involved a new school. This clearly demonstrates they had an answer in mind from the start, and then fit the data to justify the decision. No offense to the garden crowd, but renovate vs new school is the primary issue here folks. Lots of $ at stake and few giving it the attention it warrants.
Mr Post. After months engaging on the project, I agree with you on this. At first, my intent was to protect the gardens, having faith that the right school would be built. Now, I question everything including the veracity of the school proposal.
There are several legitimate issues respecting the proposed new school, design, size, Stepping Stones among others. My expectation is that the BoF and the RTM will address those. My interest is primarily in preserving the Gardens. If the P&Z Commission issued a negative 8-24 Report as to the ballfields that should probably take that divisive issue off the table. That would assist in having a thoughtful review of the proposed school. I am told the P&Z Commission will meet on Dec. 18th on the 8-24. I hope all sides and many attend.
Agree w Don Bergmann. Urge P&Z to issue a negative 8-24 Report as to the ballfields to help take that boondoggle off the table. LL School needs repair or replacement. No argument there. But build a ballfield over a community garden? Hell no.
It is baffling to me why something so important to our community, and so economically significant, has been handled in a way that shortcuts all of the rules of good governance.
Is it because a new school is a political winner, so in the calculus of our leaders, the ends justify the means?
Good processes drive the best outcomes. The LLSBC and its associated town government appear to have failed on both counts.
Good afternoon all I will also suggest emailing all of the rtm to about this today and in the next couple weeks and the selectwomen office ok from sal liccione
Sal, Don’t bother e-mailing the First Selectwoman. She doesn’t answer her e-mails. We call it being “tookered.”
As a Board of Education Member I want to be clear this current process is a sham. This project is so different to that of a major refurbishment undertaken at Coley Middle School.
People are hiding behind the process. They are not trying to find a workable solution that builds a school on time and protects a community gem.
It’s time to separate the plans for the school building from the broader land-use questions. Sadly the Long Lot Building Committee are spinning narratives that are simply untrue.
The behavior of the Parks and Recs Department has been a disgrace.
I am also highly disappointed by the actions of the Board of Education on his matter. They too are hiding behind process and failing to put their name behind the broader land-use one way of the the other. Yet again we are appointing a Board of Ed Representative to the Long Longs Building Committee with zero discussion as a Board of Ed.
This project is going to be met with delay after delay. That is NOT a good thing. We need a new school. We should protect the Community Gardens. We shouldn’t hide things from voters. We need to push for value for money in all aspects of public services.
We MUST do better.
Return on investment is key Mr. Harrington. You don’t need a new school. You need to spend residents’ money wisely. You’ll blow through an extra 70 million by building a new school versus fixing up the structure that’s there now. This is the most expensive investment in the history of the town! Really… kids can NOT be properly educated unless you spend 100+ million?
Robert,
I sincerely appreciate your willingness to stand up and proclaim the truth; this process has been a sham, starting with the bullying the community gardening group, imposing a Major League Baseball diamond on an elementary school site, attempting to ramrod an inauthentic design, completely unresponsive to the site’s natural topography while dismissing the use of a state of the art building massing composition, nor advocating for an energy efficient heating and cooling systems which would result in lower taxpayer dollars on annual operating expenses.
Not to be overlooked, let’s not forget how the school building committee did not memorialize any of their meetings with either written minutes or an audio visual record for posterity.
Finally, should the Town decide to construct a new structure (whether it be a $80M or a $110M project) in lieu of rehabilitating the existing building, I believe a project of this magnitude deserves a design competition, with no less than three architectural firms, specialized in the design of school buildings.