Alex Ruskewich, one of the organizers of Sensible Wilton, jokingly called himself the “skunk” in the room as he approached the podium during public comment at last night’s Board of Selectmen meeting. Perhaps he knew his comments to the Board would kick off an edgy conversation between a handful of citizens and the town officials with regard to the Miller-Driscoll Renovation project.
Sensible Wilton, the ad-hoc citizens group opposed to the town’s Miller-Driscoll renovation project, has continued to challenge town officials on the legality, feasibility and affordability of the project with the $50 million price tag.
Project Changes?
Ruskewich leveled a charge about the project right from the start. “Last week information surfaced that the site plan for the M-D project is not feasible. They can’t come back out to 106 and they’re trying to find some sort of alternate solution to that. We proposed to the town for the funding, and yet we’re now going to give them something else.”
Ruskewich referred to adjustments being made to the plan for exits and entrances onto the Miller-Driscoll property on Wolfpit Rd., based on traffic patterns at the school. Any adjustments need to be assessed with a traffic study and must be approved by the State Department of Transportation.
He added, “We have spent $260,000 for architectural work…and all of a sudden we find out it’s not feasible. In the business world there might be some action taken when something like that happens. I don’t know why all of a sudden it was found to be not feasible?”
Selectman Richard Dubow, who sits on the Miller Driscoll Building Committee, was forceful in his rebuttal to Ruskewich’s charge.
“The project has not changed. This is a process. We brought a schematic design to the town–by definition, the schematic design is nothing more than that, it’s schematic. We then go to design documents and then construction documents. There are constant refinements that are made along the way, thousands of them, normal, this is how a building of this magnitude is built. It is a complex project, it is a project that has been well-thought through. Your references to the site plan–they’re literally modifications; they’re not changes in scope, they’re not changes in benefits, they’re not changes in objectives. They are basically–we need a retaining wall here, we need a larger arc here, so a school bus can get around–those are the kinds of changes we’re talking about. Possibly moving an access road over a little bit, these are all normal changes that are done in the building of a building this magnitude. The fact that it is a renovation makes it even more complex.”
He added for emphasis, “I assure you, the project is feasible and it has not changed.”
Brennan reiterated the same sentiment, after reading a statement of support from the project’s architect: “It’s a normal process. It does not make the project not feasible.”
Another Sensible Wilton member, Kurt Noel, added that although he wasn’t at the most recent M-D Building Committee meeting, he understood that there was a “mistake” in the alternative changes proposed; he also asserted that the state had said, “No” to the planned paving the back access road.
Dubow rebuffed that suggestion: “The State hasn’t said anything yet.”
Again, Brennan quoted the project’s architect, adding somewhat heatedly, “When you go into these major project, things come up that are design issues, and they are problems and they have to be solved! Happens all the time. That’s what they’re doing, they’re solving the problem, it doesn’t affect the project.”
Mold Complaints?
Ruskewich echoed several complaints Sensible Wilton has leveled before, in previous press reports as well as at efforts the group has conducted to collect petition signatures pushing for a revote of the Miller-Driscoll bonding question.
“Many of the problems at M-D have come about because of poor maintenance. I’ve seen rust on handrails, I’ve seen Conex containers, I don’t know what it’s for. You’re not going to solve it just by buying something new if you’re not going to do the maintenance,” he said.
He continued, “We have felt very strongly that there are many other things that are probably even more important for the entire Miller-Driscoll–in particular there have been items identified for mold, for leaks, things that have been identified for quite a few years that have not been addressed, and I don’t see any plan for them being addressed immediately, and to me these are safety and health concerns that should be addressed before we go off on this $50 million project.”
Dubow countered, “We had a forensic analysis done on that building, and the results of that forensic analysis indicated that the bones of that building, the structure of that building is sound, we have a well-maintained, it’s 50-years old, systems needed to be replaced. But to argue that it was not a well-maintained building is misleading.”
The meeting began to get a little tenser as Ruskewich raised the issue of roof warrantees, at which point Brennan said he did not want to “degrade” a Bd. of Selectmen meeting “to go into every little issue, every little minor thing,” adding he wanted to make sure that others would get a turn to speak.
Ruskewich told the selectmen that more than 1,100 people have signed the Sensible Wilton petition.
“This gives you an idea that there are a lot of people in Wilton that are very unhappy with what’s happening. You have over 1,100 people–that’s more than the number of people that voted for the project itself. The real key thing we need to do is we gotta listen to the Wilton citizens who are unhappy,” he added.
Turner Construction Criticized
Another resident, Kevin Hickey, challenged Brennan directly on the involvement of Turner Construction, the company that is managing construction on the project.
Editor’s note: Hickey is not affiliated with the Sensible Wilton group.
“Why, when every construction project comes up, are we intertwined with Turner Construction,” Hickey asked, “rather than go for bid? I think we’re too intertwined with Turner Construction and we should have went out to bid. I’m concerned about Turner being the construction manager for every project. Moving forward, in the past–instead of going out for bid, getting the best price, the best people on board. I just think we’re too intertwined.”
Brennan countered that the town had hired a project manager for the Miller-Driscoll project.
“We have hired an independent organization to go through the process, the issuing of RFPs to construction managers to bid on the project. We’re doing that for this project, because it’s required by the state now to have those types of architects and construction managers to go out to open bid. In the past that wasn’t really a requirement,” he said.
Brennan also defended past selections of Turner: “We used Turner for many projects–they did a good job.”
Selectman Dick Dubow added, “Every single project that Turner has worked on for us–and I have sat on countless building committees–have come in on time and under budget. Whatever you want to say about their performance, it has been nothing less than exemplary.”
Hickey also complained that Turner was a member of the building committee, calling it a “conflict of interest.”
“They’re not voting members–they’re advisors. When you hire a construction manager, you hire them for the expertise. I don’t know what your problem is with Turner. This has been an extremely competent, highly respected construction manager. They have a terrifically good reputation. The fact that they’ve been on a number of different projects doesn’t make them evil, it makes them competent,” Brennan said, adding, “We’ve gone back to them because we’ve had success. They did the library–that was an extremely good project. The inference that because Turner sits on the committee with the steering committee, they provide advice, they’re not a voting member.”
Hickey still insisted, “You’re taking one firm, and putting them in place, intertwining them.”
Brennan countered again, “We have hired a firm, this firm’s only job is to do the RFPs for the construction manager for the Miller-Driscoll project. They will issue all the RFPs. Turner will bid on that. It will be an objective process; the town doesn’t have anything to do with that. We’re doing exactly what your concern is.”
Building Committee Conflicts?
Noel cited a town “Bonded Capital Projects Process” document which he said shows that some of the Miller-Driscoll Building Committee members should not be permitted to serve on the building committee. He said it was written to prevent “town insiders”–members of any [other] board which has approval or review responsibility for a particular project, including the selectmen, planning & zoning, Bd. of Education, Bd. of Finance–from being included.
“We have all kinds of people with conflicts. To me, this is written to keep town insiders off the building committee. Maybe we like to have insiders. I think there’s a real question about the performance of the Miller-Driscoll Building committee and a real question about whether the people on it belong there,” Noel said.
Brennan thank him for his comments and told him the selectmen “would look into it.”
Selectmen say they Hope Officials “Listen” to Constituents
Serving at his last selectmen’s meeting before officially stepping down, Ted Hoffstatter incorporated his take during his goodbye statement.
“I hope the board works together as a team, but also make sure we’re listening to our town’s citizens. When concerns come up, sometimes they’re inconvenient, but it’s better to address them than not. I hope we’re proactive in interacting with our constituents. Sometimes you’ve got to rethink or do things a different way, that’s ok too,” he said.
Michael Kaelin, the newest selectman also commented in response.
“I appreciate the comments you gentleman made tonight. It struck me as I was listening to you, maybe they’re misdirected and maybe they’re just a misunderstanding. When I say misdirected, they seem like comments and questions that are better directed to the building committee than the board of selectmen. I hope you gentlemen can talk to the people who are on the building committee outside of a formal meeting, outside of a formal hearing. If you don’t feel like that’s the case, talk to me. You should be able to talk to the people on the committee. I think that would clear up a lot of misunderstanding.”
The article was updated to reflect that one resident who spoke at the meeting is unaffiliated with Sensible Wilton.