The Wilton Capital Planning Committee worked hard at its most recent meeting (Jan. 21) to find consensus on its mission and charge — ultimately arriving at a compromise that may or may not cloud what it was originally created to do.
It remains apparent that since the committee’s inception more than two years ago there has been a disconnect between its two main objectives — prioritizing items originally included on the town and school facilities assessment reports, which are what actually prompted the formation of the committee (known as the Town and School Needs Assessment Priorities Committee (TSNAP) at the time), and also creating a long-term planning map for the town’s capital projects.
Chair Jeff Rutishauser set out at the Jan. 21 meeting to finally clarify its charge — in particular what it’s supposed to be delivering to the Board of Selectmen next month, with a plan to vote on a priority list of capital projects scheduled for WCPC’s Feb. 4 meeting.
The Confusing Inclusion of Ambler Farm
On July 10, 2024, First Selectman Toni Boucher opened the first TSNAP meeting by nominating Patti Temple, chair of Friends of Ambler Farm, to chair TSNAP based on her experience working on both the Miller-Driscoll School and Police Headquarters Building Committees.
With more non-voting town employee members in attendance than elected officials, (then) Board of Finance Chair Matt Raimondi and BOF member Rudy Escalante were the only two present who inquired about Temple’s qualifications, the need for a vice chair, and what the long-term work of TSNAP would look like.
“Quite frankly, this is a short-term committee … and I don’t think we need additional leadership to guide the committee,” Boucher said. “This is just going to be a couple meetings in the summer, July and August … and we’re going to look at 15 years into the future but that’s so far into the future, that will change dramatically.”
At its Dec. 4, 2024 meeting, questions were raised about including both Ambler Farm’s White House and Yellow House in the TSNAP discussion, even though they weren’t part of the original assessment reports.
“We talked about it and deliberated on it last year,” Boucher said at that meeting in regard to the BOS, citing “public record” of the meeting and noting that repair work on the houses has been put off for 20 years in a row.
“In the next year we were committing ourselves that it would be put on the agenda … To move it would be not a good idea,” Boucher said, stating she was unclear if the Board of Selectmen had actually voted on including it in TSNAP’s charge or sanctioned it as a capital project.
Raimondi, who said he watched the BOS meeting referenced, noted that no vote was taken and that at least some of the BOS members had more questions about the Ambler projects. “I’m not sure that word ‘commitment’ is the word that every member of the Board of Selectmen (used).”
Boucher then said it was being included on the TSNAP list because someone — she did not give a name but said they were serving on TSNAP — wanted it put on.
“It was just put on there because someone on this group wanted to see it,” Boucher said.
Then-Selectman Basim Nabulsi also stepped in to comment on the matter.
“I think it would be best to have it on there … To the extent that it’s funded this year, those are funds that are not available for other purposes, so it makes sense to me that this group should figure out where it would place it on its priorities.”
In the end, the first recommendation list to come out of TSNAP included four items that were not part of the assessment reports, including road paving, purchase of a dump truck, the turf field at Wilton High School, and a $1 million renovation project on Ambler Farm’s White House.
Finding Purpose
Fast forward to present day and the current iteration of the committee. Exactly what is — and what isn’t — in the Wilton Capital Planning Committee’s mission is still up for debate.
“There’s been a lot of discussion and growing discussion about what is our mandate … The purpose of this committee is to analyze the Needs Assessment Reports,” Rutishauser said, which strictly identified specific building renovations needed — both schools and municipal buildings — and ultimately told the town that around $150 million would be needed to deal with a far-reaching range of issues.
Over the past two months, however, the WCPC has entertained reports on a range of unrelated capital projects — most recently at this latest meeting on Jan. 21, when Parks and Recreation Department Director Steve Pierce spoke about the desire for capital expenditures for pickleball courts, replacing LED lamps at the fields, a full-size gym at Comstock Community Center, field irrigation systems and more turf field replacements.
“In the old days capital projects came through the departments that sponsored them,” Rutishauser said, and were presented to the BOS directly.
“If we’re going to be true to the mandate as it’s specifically stated here, projects that are not in those (assessment) reports will be basically tossed and put into a different channel to get to the Board of Selectmen, because they’re worthy projects but they can’t be part of what we do because that’s not part of our mandate,” he said.
“We’re not going to rate things that are not in our mandate because they’re not in our mandate,” Rutishauser said.
Contemplating Expansion
While she may have originally expected the committee to exist only through the summer of 2024, Boucher and others saw it continue with some level of confusion through early 2025. Disagreements largely focused on a divide between what some members — typically elected officials — wanted to pursue as capital projects, and the cost and staffing challenges raised by town employees who serve as non-voting members. Questions about the committee’s mandate led to confusion over whether projects should be judged by need, cost, or both.
At the end of spring 2025, Boucher christened the committee with a new name, a new chair in Rutishauser, and a somewhat expanded mission that included looking at other town-owned properties in order to evaluate their use and relevance. Around this same time — but with BOS approval — Boucher quietly closed down the Wilton Housing Committee.
Recently, Boucher commented at a meeting that, as the WCPC was the only building-related committee in existence, expansion of its scope made sense. The indication at that time was that the BOS would be discussing it further.
While current BOF member Kim Healy was among the BOS members who approved the mission of the new WCPC — and also served as a committee member last year — she told the WCPC during public comment on Jan. 21 that she had concerns about the committee considering additional items.
“I’m really glad to see you guys are going back to the original scope of the committee,” she said.
Healy pointed out, however, that three items currently on the list of projects to be evaluated did not appear in either the original town or school needs assessment reports, and that their urgency seems to have been expanded — or perhaps inflated — since last year. These include major renovations (or possibly even new construction) for Town Hall, an addition to the Fire Department headquarters by Town Hall, and at addition to the Highway Department garage.
“They’ve been greatly expanded since the original … I think there needs to be a really good, thorough investigation into why, for instance, the Fire Department now needs five more million dollars or whatever it is, and a much larger building that was not part of the needs assessment, and a new Town Hall.”
Healy reminded everyone that several million dollars was already put in the budget for renovations at Town Hall, though she said there was “never a consideration in those assessments or any opinion by the company that did the assessment that that one was needed.”
“I just wanted to highlight that because it’s something that was troubling me, that this committee was brought a lot more information that was outside of the scope than I believe the scope was,” she said.
Department of Public Works Assistant Director Jeff Pardo pointed out that a number of projects that were highlighted in the needs assessments reports are not on the table at this time.
“There are many projects that are in those two needs assessments that are not here because they’re not considered as much of a priority as these [new] items [outside the scope],” he said.
BOF member Kari Roberts questioned whether the committee’s role had effectively been usurped.”Then it sounds like then [other] people have already prioritized things.”
Considering Gilbert & Bennett
The working copy of the WCPC’s project rating evaluation currently contains 28 separate line items based on presentations from five different areas: Schools from Superintendent Kevin Smith for the Board of Education (six items); Park and Recreation from Pierce (10 items); Department of Public Works/Municipal Buildings from DPW Director Frank Smeriglio (9 items); Fire Department from Fire Chief Jim Blanchfield (two items); and the Ambler Farm Yellow House.
These items total $57,647,591, with no cost figure given for “new building/renovations” at the Grounds Department building, and only $600,000 noted for Town Hall “preliminary design,” with no additional amounted noted for the work itself on a new or renovated building, though there has been some WCPC discussion around that building.
One item that is not on the list for consideration of rating is the Gilbert & Bennett School, at least based on the public documents posted with the WCPC’s Jan. 21 meeting agenda.
Conflicting comments and some confusion during discussion among WCPC members at its Jan. 21 meeting indicated that not every member even had the same documents in hand, as different items appeared to be included according to some members, while others did not see them included or were focusing on different documents.
“It is clearly on the list,” Escalante told Roberts, who broached the question. “Gilbert & Bennett is on the list, so it’s on your list. Don’t worry about it.”
“It’s not on the list,” several member said in response.
Smeriglio, who appears to have taken the lead in deciding which items were even being presented to the WCPC, said, “It hasn’t been presented as part of the 23, but adding it to this list is a simple thing.”
Though she seemed to have to fight to get her concern heard as several members spoke over her or interrupted, Roberts eventually got her point across and was adamant that the public wanted to see the G&B school included for consideration.
“We had several speakers who spoke very strongly about it, so I’m just trying to listen to what the people say, that’s all,” Roberts said.
Once again, she also raised a question of whether historic consideration was being given weight as the committee considers how to rank its recommendations based on recent input from members of the public and also town officials.
“There were some very passionate speakers who wanted historical value added into the criteria,” Roberts said.
Time Spent
WCPC member Rich Santosky, who has been with the committee since its inception as TSNAP, expressed some frustration that a lot of time had been spent learning about projects that — the committee was now deciding — were not even part of its purview.
Santosky argued that the committee should focus on developing a long-term capital plan looking 15 years ahead, noting that the needs assessment reports completed more than two years ago had likely changed.
Escalante countered that the committee still needed to complete its original assignment: making recommendations for next year’s capital plan.
“We’ve been given an assignment,” Escalante said. “It’s like a homework assignment. Do your homework assignment.”
As a means of compromise, Rutishauser suggested that the WCPC could simply present the BOS with two items — an ordered list of recommendations of things that were in the assessment reports, and a separate document of some kind expressing the committee’s opinions on other capital items.