Voters Will Decide—

Council OKs Extra $6 Million For NHS Expansion

By John Voket

On the evening of September 17, the Legislative Council proved just how far it was willing to gamble. The panel endorsed moving a $6-million-plus appropriation to taxpayers to meet escalating costs to expand and renovate Newtown High School.

But in doing so, the council rolled the dice, betting on Connecticut State Senator John McKinney to help shepherd a waiver so taxpayers would not be forced to ante up as much as another 15 percent of the project cost to meet a new state mandated green building standard.

Over the course of nearly four hours, the council heard from nearly a dozen residents, most calling for the additional appropriation to be sent to a referendum. Tim Northrop told the officials, “The consequences of not proceeding with the current project will have long-term ramifications.

“We want you to govern, but we don’t want you to strip us of our basic rights as citizens,” he added.

Pointing out that he still did not understand the long-term impact the high school expansion would have on his local taxes, Mike Snyder implored the council to “let people know the impact on their taxes before they go to the polls.”

Ruby Johnson reminded the council that ignoring or delaying school space needs in the past had myriad consequences. She reviewed a timeline recalling double and triple sessions for students, and a rash of portables that had to be hastily installed throughout the community during one local population spurt.

In opposing the appropriation, Mark Dewolfe countered that he was one of those students enduring double sessions in modular classrooms, telling the council and audience that he still received a good education.

“The best thing we can teach our children is fiscal responsibility,” he told the council, referring to the rapid cost escalations after two district consultants fixed the cost of the project at more than $6 million less than what qualified contractors eventually bid to complete the work.

Following the public comment, Sen McKinney addressed the room regarding another recent development — the new state law requiring all state-funded school projects meet LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver certification. The school board and administration learned this week that since the state reimbursement for the expansion was being delivered after January 1, 2009, the project technically is required to meet the stepped-up environmental standards for materials and infrastructure. (See related story.)

Sen McKinney detailed several reasons why the Newtown high school project deserved a waiver, and confirmed the district had two separate opportunities to appeal for the waiver.

While Sen McKinney could not guarantee the waiver would be granted, he noted that Newtown’s situation was a one-of-a-kind scenario, in that officials sought bonding before bids were solicited. By virtue of the fact that aspects of the project were publicly approved, and some peripheral components of the actual construction had commenced before the LEED mandate or its guidelines took effect, he felt the project would receive a waiver.

“The OPM [Office of Policy and Management] can grant a waiver if the costs outweigh the benefits of the law,” Sen McKinney said, adding that it would be impossible for the project to conform with the law because the regulations tied to the legislation were still in draft form. “We can’t comply with the law because there are no regulations in place.”

Sen McKinney said that if the OPM failed to grant a waiver, once the project reimbursement came up for approval early next year, he would fight for a “nonwithstanding exemption,” before the full legislature.

“The best argument for the law not applying is the project was approved by the state facilities unit before the law was applied,” he explained. “This is a unique situation. That’s why we put the waiver clause in the legislation.”

Council member Patricia Llodra then confirmed that the waiver attempt could still ultimately fail, subjecting the project to redesign and refitting to meet the LEED Silver status.

“This law applies to this project today,” Sen McKinney responded. A few minutes later architect Joe Costa of Fletcher Thompson confirmed that if the waiver effort failed, it could generate an additional 15 percent of the overall project cost to retool and acquire new materials to meet the LEED Silver certification.

Morganti Group construction manager Ed Barrett then stood before the council answering questions and reconfirming repeatedly that the market forces causing the rapid escalations in certain material and related costs happened so fast, it was impossible to react because bid solicitation on the project was already in process.

Council Finance Committee Chair Joseph DiCandido reiterated his contention that all or parts of the project should be rebid because of declining market forces in place today, versus when contractors were factoring their bids in July.

“These prices were estimated at the highest point of the bubble,” Mr DiCandido said.

Council Chair Will Rodgers than asked Mr Barrett if it was permissible to consider rebidding only aspects of the project he felt might produce cost savings. Mr Barrett responded in the affirmative. Councilman Christopher Lyddy then asked if going out to rebid is a greater gamble than holding the bids in hand.

Mr Barrett echoed his earlier answer, “Yes.”

Ms Llodra then sought to confirm if Morganti would seek additional cost savings on specific rebids, namely the general trades and HVAC segments of the project.

“Yes. There could be savings,” Mr Barrett said.

Just before the vote, Superintendent Janet Robinson spoke candidly to the council.

“This project really is about the kids. And if they could speak to you tonight, they’d say ‘gimme a break.’ It’s time to draw a line in the sand,” Dr Robinson said.

Just as the resolution was set to vote, council member Jeff Capeci offered an amendment that would have stipulated certain classroom, lab, and sports facilities be mandated even if other aspects of the project had to be scrapped or modified for budgetary reasons. Several council members countered, expressing their discomfort with the “cherry-picking” aspect of the amendment, which subsequently failed.

The full amendment then went to a vote, providing each council member to offer his or her rationale behind the individual’s pending decision. Most council members took a few moments to explain their feelings on the matter, and most concurred that although some cost savings might be achieved by rebidding or delaying the project, the decision should ultimately be put in the hands of taxpayers.

The roll call yielded a 9–3 outcome with Mr Rodgers, Mr DiCandido, and Councilman John Aurelia voting No.

According to the Registrar of Voters office, the referendum on the additional $6 million appropriation could be held as early as October 7, or as late as October 21.