After months of work by the Town and Schools Needs Assessment Priorities Committee (TSNAP) and multiple discussions by the Board of Selectmen (BOS), Wilton’s BOS has finally reached consensus on a list of capital projects that will be presented to voters for bonding at the May 6 Annual Town Meeting.

With the BOS’s latest deliberations taking place over two evenings (April 1-2), the selectmen voted unanimously to recommend the following nine capital projects to the tune of $7,912,296:

  • DPW Large Truck/Plow/Sander: $330,000
  • Road Restoration (7 miles): $700,000
  • District Roof Replacements — High School Library: $2,000,000
  • Cider Mill Chilled Water Replacement, Equipment and Piping: $1,547,678
  • Schools Drainage, Sidewalks and Paving: $725,000
  • The Raymond-Ambler House (the “white house”) at Ambler Farm: $1,286,618
  • Middlebrook Exhaust Fan Replacement: $373,000
  • Middlebrook Gym HVAC: $250,000
  • Artificial Turf Field (stadium turf replacement): $700,000

The turf field request was reduced by $300,000 after the realization that funds from the Town’s turf field sinking fund could be utilized to offset the expected $1,000,000 cost.

The BOS is expected to make a decision on Monday, April 7, whether to recommend bonding for Middlebrook floor tiles, lighting, and ceiling tiles in the amount of $1,000,000. The selectmen still need to resolve some issues pertaining to how the project is bundled and whether it meets the legal requirements for bonding.

The selectmen decided not to advance three initiatives — at least for FY’26 — that had been under consideration on the short list of potential priorities:

  • Restroom Renovations, including the Merwin Meadows facilities: $375,000
  • The Ambler Farm “Yellow House”: $1,076,000
  • Town Hall Addition/Renovation Schematic Designs: $800,000 (GOOD Morning Wilton reported on this in an earlier story)

Although the TSNAP members approached their task of prioritizing the projects in rank order of importance, the selectmen made the deliberate decision not to present them that way to voters — rather, they intend to convey their support for each initiative and voters will then decide.

“It’s okay [to let] the town decide whether they agree with it or not. At the end of the day, it’s their money. It’s their decision,” First Selectman Toni Boucher said in a discussion about the Raymond-Ambler House.

United Front on Ambler Farm Approach — with Reservations

Of all the measures under consideration in recent months, the funding requests by the Friends of Ambler Farm (FOAF) for renovations of the Raymond-Ambler House and the Yellow House were perhaps the most difficult for both the selectmen and the TSNAP committee — whose recommendations preceded the BOS’ deliberations — to come to terms with.

FOAF representatives have made multiple presentations and appeals to the BOS, stating that the Town has failed to live up to its obligations under the property deed and urging the board to finally and adequately do so.

Selectwoman Kim Healy viewed the deed and the history of the Town’s support differently. She expressed concerns about the funding request from the very start.

Though Healy has emphasized she would be happy to see all of the FOAF plans realized, she has been a persistent voice in questioning the costs and whether the FOAF overreached in their funding request — which includes elements such as patios, programming spaces, an apartment for a farm worker, and a demonstration kitchen, for example — which might exceed the Town’s obligation to maintain the buildings for public use.

Healy also questioned the reliability of the cost estimates that were provided, and whether even more funding would ultimately be needed. Assistant DPW Director Jeff Pardo responded he was reasonably confident in the numbers, but noted that TSNAP committee member and construction professional Rich Santosky had conveyed the same concern to him.

Selectman Josh Cole also had reservations but, like Healy, did not minimize the appeal of Ambler Farm and its value to the community.

“I think we’re all generally in agreement that the work needs to be done. I think maybe what needs to be discussed is the scope and extent of the work,” he said. “I’m struggling with the scope and the responsibility that the town taxpayer will share in…. on the other hand, I also look at this as an asset, and I think there is value there to people.”

Boucher said the BOS’ decision was “a moment of truth.”

“I think this project has been long in coming and really delayed, and the town hasn’t addressed this in decades,” Boucher said. “So it is a moment of truth here… for me, I think that this is a move forward for one of the best town amenities that we have and a destination.”

At the April 1 meeting, Healy continued to make her case and pressed the board to consider a compromise on a reduced amount but was met with little interest.

Selectman Bas Nabulsi expressed appreciation for Healy’s due diligence, noting that he now had a fuller understanding of the scope of the project and the required investment.

“I’m super thankful that Kim [Healy] has pushed hard on this question,” Nabulsi said.

However, he went on to say he had been convinced the FOAF was deserving of the funding as requested for the Raymond-Ambler House, calling it “more than reasonable.”

“We’ve had a very complete presentation from the [FOAF] on how the space is going to be used. I have a much better appreciation of what the build-out is going to look like. I think that it is a more than reasonable investment… I feel like I understand it now, and I think it’s time.”

When the meeting resumed on April 2, Healy asked to make a statement about a decision she had reached to enable the board to make a unanimous vote in support of the funding request for the Raymond-Ambler House.

She thanked the board for the thoughtful review process and acknowledged the importance and tradition of BOS members working to reach unanimity in decisions such as capital spending priorities.

“I wanted to thank you guys for giving me this time so that I could reflect on the project, and I listened carefully to all of you and your opinions. And I really appreciate our past practice of taking the time [so] that we can vote unanimously. I do believe it is really important for us to do that, to show our support of projects going forward.”

However, she remains conflicted.

“I am super concerned about our struggling residents. I really am,” she continued. “I do struggle to ask our taxpayers to fund the entire project.”

Moreover, when it came to the Yellow House, Healy maintained her position that more planning work is needed before the BOS should recommend the Yellow House project to voters.

Her fellow board members did not disagree. The board will explore possible cost reductions or other alternative ideas before considering whether to present a bonding measure for the Yellow House improvements in FY ’27. In the meantime, they plan to use available funds to begin the design phase.

Healy also urged residents with the means to do so to support FOAF’s fundraising efforts.