After learning that underground site challenges for a proposed new community center at Fairfield Hills had the potential to drain as much as $1.6 million from the project's $15 million budget before any above ground construction could begin, Finance Director Robert Tait confirmed to The Newtown Bee that approved funds for the Canaan House demolition could be used to offset that unanticipated site prep liability.

There is approximately $1.2 million remaining under the demolition bond authorization, Mr Tait said.

Over the course of several public meetings in recent weeks, the design and construction team continued to telegraph concerns involving structural elements of Canaan House that could trigger an inordinate amount of site preparation spending.

Developers indicated that before foundation and construction work could commence, they will likely have to remove some remaining parts of the Canaan House foundation along with attached portions of underground tunnels that provided weather protection for staffers and patients of the former state hospital to travel between buildings on the campus.

Mr Tait said when demolition crews got to the point where all of the above ground portions of Canaan House were razed, and the debris was cleared, that it was determined certain parts of the foundation and tunnels could remain buried beneath the site.

"When we stopped, there was about $1.2 million left under the original demolition and remediation bond authorization," the finance director said. "The town can use those remaining funds to, in effect, continue the demolition process and any related remediation as needed to make the site ready for future development."

It appears to be serendipitous that the best possible site for the community center was determined to be mostly over the footprint of the former hospital dormitory.

"It's a coincidence that during the final stages of taking down Canaan House, we decided we didn't need to demolish parts of the structure that were below grade," Mr Tait said.

The news will likely come as a relief to project supporters and those watching the early stages of project development with critical eyes. Several members of the former Community Center Advisory Commission requested the town research whether those funds could be used during a Board of Selectmen meeting on April 3.

That meeting opened with a nearly two-hour session bringing together representatives from Quisenberry Arcari Architects, Caldwell & Walsh Building Construction, and Robert Mitchell, the chairman of Newtown's Public Building and Site Commission (PBSC), which is charged with owner's oversight on this and other municipal building projects.

That session was planned by First Selectman Pat Llodra, who is facing escalating criticism from residents who are either responding to incomplete, or misinformation, circulating in the community about the pending community center development.

A $10 million gift from General Electric to create a community center in the wake of the 12/14 tragedy, is being supplemented with an added $5 million in bonding to complete a facility that would contain both aquatic recreation features, as well as flexible community space for gatherings and programs. In addition to the $10 million from GE to build the center, the corporation also is providing $5 million to underwrite operating costs up to or beyond the first five years after its opening.

Misinformation Abounds

Before the building and design team members commenced with their presentations, Mrs Llodra discussed a raft of e-mails she received in recent days, many either relating incorrect information as justification for the sender's ire, or mirroring misinformation that has been circulating on internet social media sites.

One e-mail said "people," including the sender, "are angry and feel deceived," believing that Mrs Llodra "bided her time" to get a project completed that was not consistent with what the writer felt she voted for when authorizing the project at referendum in April of 2016.

Other e-mails incorrectly state concerns that "dedicated space for seniors" was part of the community center; that adding $3 million to the project for a senior center "seems very deceiving and mismanaged." Another states that "a decision not to endorse a 50 meter pool... is deceptive," and accuses selectmen of being "misguided at best, and possibly corruptive [sic]."

Yet another incorrectly assumes the project is not being sent out for a "true competitive bid" - adding that "the corruption is shameful." Others call for the project to go back to voters for another approval.

Mrs Llodra told The Bee that there is "confusion, anger, and conflicts" out in the community about what the project is becoming, and questioning "How did we get here?"

She said after a contentious meeting on the center's progress about a month earlier, she realized there was a "gap in information," that she hoped to assuage by bringing in key project representatives to field any and every question residents wanted to ask, along with clarifying the project was progressing as expected.

"I know being criticized is part of what I signed on for in my position," she said. "But the thing that I'm saying to people is - don't traffic in misinformation. There is so much information on our website that when I started receiving e-mails stating we are building a senior center [versus a community center], and that the project is not being bid, that is the kind of situation where people who get their information strictly from social media have - to some extent - have abandoned the level of critical thinking that needs to be applied to differentiate between real facts and someone else's opinion."

One of the key clarifications that seemed to emerge from the April 3 meeting was the type of delivery model the town chose to bring the project to fruition, which is "design/construction manager at risk" or CMR model. That process ultimately protects the town from cost overruns that may occur after a final design is approved, according to Mr Mitchell.

Another point clarified was that Claris Construction, a local firm headed up by PBSC member Phil Clark, has no desire to be part of the project. At an earlier meeting Mr Clark indicated his firm could build the center for $250 per square foot, but capitulated to The Newtown Bee several days later admitting that his firm could likely not deliver on a public project of this scope, which is subject to prevailing wage standards that can increase overall project costs by as much as 35 percent.

In a letter Mr Clark presented to selectmen on March 30, he also praised Caldwell & Walsh, saying the Sandy Hook construction firm "has an exceptional reputation, and I'm confident [the town] has chosen the right contractor for the project."

Premature Cost Projections

One of the other major points the April 3 presentations affirmed was that individuals critical of per-square-foot project costs are reacting to extremely premature and sketchy projections that were floated by a design team consultant.

Kevin McFarlan of Quisenberry Arcari confirmed that "We're just in concept phase," and that any estimates put forth up to this point in the design phase cannot possibly encompass "precise details."

John Deren of Caldwell & Walsh echoed that statement, adding the project has not yet reached the design estimate phase, and that competitive bidding of contracts would follow. Only after qualified bids come in will the building and design team begin to get a handle on anticipated final cost for the center.

"This is a completely transparent project - we maintain an open book on everything," Mr Deren said.

His presentation illustrated that the project is only in the earliest of four design phases, all of which need to occur before bid documents are even proposed. He assured selectmen that Caldwell & Walsh will be working with all members of the design team to verify budget numbers at each phase "to ensure adherence to project programming and budget."

After bid documents are finalized, Mr Deren said each and every project contract will be competitively bid to multiple subcontractors. A minimum of three bids, preferably more, will be necessary for each trade contract.

All contracts are bid in a public environment, and the construction manager tracks bidders and coordinates all requests for information (RFIs). Then, sealed bids are received and opened in the presence of the owner or owner representative.

Next, he said bids are reviewed by construction manager for compliance with bid documents, and detailed written scope sheets allow for a side-by-side review of bids. Then scope sheets are sent to each bidder and the construction manager meets with bidders to review details. Once scopes are reviewed, bidders are asked for their best and final number, and the construction manager,recommends an award to the owner or owner representative.

Because the project delivery system comes with a guaranteed maximum price (GMP), Mr Deren explained that after the best and final price is attained from bidders and owner approval is finalized, contracts are awarded for construction. Under the design/construction manager at risk delivery model, construction manager fees are fixed for the construction phase.

Under this model, any and all buyout savings and remaining contingency funds go back to the owner.

It is only at that juncture that the project's construction phase begins.

Besides the recently estimated sitework, which was previously projected at $1.6 million, the balance of current budget parameters are still based on a very fluid concept design. Since Mr Deren was unaware that part of that $1.6 million could be offset by some or all of the remaining bond authorization, his preliminary budget estimates to meet the $15 million cap factor in that expenditure to the working budget model he presented to selectmen.

Any amount of the aforementioned $1.2 million that can be applied to site prep will revert back to the construction budget to provide for enhanced features, including a possibly larger lap pool.

Caldwell & Walsh's preliminary budget model fixes community center space construction at 15,565 square feet, and costing about $4 million or $257 per square foot. Aquatic space at 17,670 square feet is estimated to cost $6.5 million or $368 per square foot.

Adding to that project development fees of $1.9 million that include furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FFE), consultant fees, and testing, and design contingency and cost escalation at $1 million brings the total budget to $15 million or a combined total of $451 per square foot all told, which mirrors the approved construction authorization.