Wilton’s Town and School Needs Assessment Priorities Committee (TSNAP) met on Wed., Sept. 11. The agenda focused mainly on a “framework” proposed by TSNAP member and Board of Finance Chair Matt Raimondi for how he thinks the committee should approach its task of making recommendations to prioritize capital projects for municipal buildings and schools over the next several years. (His presentation, which he also shared with the BOF on Sept. 10, is posted on the Town website.)
“I think the committee’s done a great job of thinking through the construction components of exactly what needs to be done. I thank our Town employees, for all the hard work you put together — helping us understand exactly what’s broken,” Raimondi began, referring to the needs assessments that identified $216 million in repairs and upgrades needed in Wilton’s schools and municipal buildings.
However, Raimondi said it is important to “take a step back” at this juncture, with more strategic analysis and a discussion about what is truly affordable for the Town.
As old debt expires, new debt can be added without increasing costs to the Town. According to the data Raimondi shared, roughly $81 million could be borrowed over the next 15 years without increasing current debt service costs. Raimondi is proposing a framework using current debt service levels of roughly $10 million as a critical benchmark for setting project priorities each year.
However, addressing all of the municipal and school building needs that have been identified to date would require far more than $81 million. The total estimated cost is actually $216 million — and that does not even include any new needs that may emerge over that 15-year time period or the possibility of rebuilding (rather than renovating) the beleaguered Town Hall.
Selectman Bas Nabulsi, who also sits on the TSNAP Committee, felt Raimondi’s framework could be a useful construct, but cautioned against using it to “filter” recommendations for projects that might be warranted.
“I don’t think it would be helpful, or would be the Board of Selectmen’s desire, that a priority item was not included in a [TSNAP] recommendation, because this group concluded that from a financial perspective, it exceeded the community’s willingness to pay for it,” Nabulsi said. “At the end of the day, that probably is a Board of Selectmen decision.”
Raimondi emphasized his approach was “not a filter, but a framework” so that in the event any projects would result in a debt service increase, the committee — and ultimately the BOS — could anticipate more of a challenge to “make the case” for prioritizing the work.
“This is just a framework… it’s just a way to help us bring and justify the recommendations we make to the Board of Selectmen,” he said. “It’s a framework for how to think about spending and how to benchmark against it.”
Rudy Escalante — who, like Raimondi, is a dual member of the TSNAP Committee and Wilton’s Board of Finance — also expressed the need for some sort of affordability guardrail, especially with the potential for further cost escalation and other “unknowns” as the years unfold. (Escalante was not in attendance at the TSNAP meeting, but did submit a memo to the committee before the meeting.)
“With [potential] overruns and additional requirements, the total cost could easily exceed a quarter of a billion dollars. While most of the requests for improvements and new buildings are justifiable, I believe the total expense is beyond what the Town will approve,” Escalante wrote.
Escalante also believes Town employees — namely DPW Director/Town Engineer Frank Smeriglio and Assistant Director/Facilities Manager Jeff Pardo — should be primarily responsible for setting specific project priorities in any given year.
“As a member of the BOF, I am primarily focused on the financial impact of the proposed repairs. I feel there are employees in the Town who can select priorities of the repairs. The restraining factor is the affordability of the Town,” he wrote.
As for those Town employees, both Smeriglio and Pardo seemed to welcome the framework Raimondi proposed.
“I think this is really good,” Smeriglio said, making it “easier for us to get our hands around” both upper and lower limits on what spending might be feasible in any given year.
The committee’s discussion also touched on alternative funding sources — such as grants, excess fund balances, operating budgets, and even charitable donations — that might help to minimize borrowing.
Moving forward, the committee agreed to meet every other week, instead of weekly as originally envisioned, and with some meetings scheduled in the evenings to better accommodate members’ schedules. The committee’s first goal is to develop a prioritized list of projects to recommend to the Board of Selectmen later this year, in time for FY’26 budgeting planning.