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.







































