Town officials have reviewed the findings from a new study focused on exploring alternative scenarios for renovating and potentially expanding Wilton’s Town Hall.
On Wednesday, Nov. 13, Eric Kaeyer of KG+D Architects presented two options to the Town and Schools Needs Assessment Priorities Committee (TSNAP) for consideration. TSNAP is wrestling with how to make recommendations to prioritize funding for urgently needed building repairs as well as to address the space needs of the various departments located on the Town Hall Campus.
Although the study was undertaken in large part to determine whether tearing down the existing Town Hall structure and starting from scratch with new construction might be more cost-effective than renovating, the consultant did not present the teardown alternative as an option during the meeting. First Selectman Toni Boucher seems intent on avoiding the teardown scenario in favor of renovation plans that will meet stated goals, but some TSNAP committee members continue to question the benefits of renovation over a new construction approach.
About The Study
Kaeyer began his presentation by explaining that several alternatives had been explored, factoring in their ability to meet several core objectives. As articulated in the presentation document, the goals for Town Hall include:
- Renovate the Town Hall infrastructure and office space
- Preserve the “historic quality” of Town Hall
- Accommodate the departments currently in the Annex within Town Hall
- “Right-size” the offices to meet community needs
- Add multiple conference and meeting rooms
- Provide essential storage space for records and equipment
- Increase parking on campus for staff and visitors
- Meet code requirements (accessibility, energy, fire, etc.)
“We looked at several different options. Today we’re only really talking about the two final options,” Kaeyer told the TSNAP members. “But along the way, we really looked at about eight or nine, everything from just straight renovation of those existing buildings to complete replacement, with the understanding, ultimately, that those essential items really needed to be met.”
Kaeyer’s presentation included campus site plans, conceptual floor plans, a rough budget estimate and construction phasing for two of the options KG+D explored.
Jeff Pardo, assistant director of Wilton’s Public Works Department (DPW), emphasized the options presented are very preliminary.
“[This] is schematic. It is not final plans, it’s not final renderings, it’s not final elevations,” he said.
Option A
Kaeyer presented one option to renovate the existing Town Hall (outlined in red in the rendering below) and construct a new, two-story, wrap-around addition with a basement.
The new building could accommodate all of the departments currently housed in the Annex, which include the Building, Environmental Affairs, Health, Planning & Zoning, and Public Works departments.
The Annex would be demolished once the new building is complete — allowing a new parking lot with 40 parking spaces.
Option B
The second option also consisted of a two-story addition, but shaped and configured differently. Part of the current building — a double-height area that was originally an auditorium — would be demolished.
As with Option A, all of the departments would be housed in the new building and the Annex would be demolished, allowing more parking.
The 18,000-sq.ft. addition in Option B would be larger than the 11,000-sq.ft. addition in Option A.
Kaeyer highlighted several other differences between the two options:
- Option A requires underpinning of the foundation, while Option B does not.
- Option B allows some parking spaces alongside the building.
- Option B has less green space between Town Hall and the new police station.
Although architectural designs were not part of the study, the current appearance of the Town Hall facade with its signature columns could remain the same, if desired. Under both options that Kaeyer presented, the historic lobby at Town Hall’s front entrance would also be preserved. More detailed floor plans can be seen in the presentation document posted on the Town website.
Costs
Kaeyer offered a very rough budget range of $28 million for Option A to $33 million for Option B, including construction, four years of cost escalation, and “soft costs” (which reflect costs for temporary space for displaced employees, among other costs). An additional $2 million may be needed for a new animal control facility, which is currently connected to the Annex.
The consultant concluded that simply renovating the existing spaces would not meet the Town’s stated needs.
“A straight renovation project, although obviously significantly less costly, wouldn’t meet the goals and needs of the different departments,” Kaeyer said.
The “90,000-foot question”: Preserve or Rebuild?
Both of the options presented by the consultant involve keeping and renovating all or most of the original Town Hall building. First Selectman Toni Boucher has commented numerous times that she is strongly opposed to a teardown approach for the building. Although the building has no National Register historic designation, it is over 90 years old and, Boucher believes, is an important and recognizable symbol for the Town. [Editor’s note: According to Wilton Historic District and Historic Properties Chair Lori Fusco, Town Hall does appear in the local Historic Resources Inventory and at the state level.]
In one of TSNAP’s earliest meetings, some committee members raised questions about whether tearing down the building and starting from scratch with all-new construction might be more cost-effective and a better long-term solution for the Town’s needs. In fact, that key question was the impetus for undertaking the KG+D study.
Yet, KG+D did not develop the teardown concept, on the basis that it would “alter the historic character of Town Hall,” which would be contrary to the stated goals it was asked to meet — even though the teardown option was assessed as “positive” in terms of meeting all of the other goals, according to charts in the appendix of the consultant’s document. While the charts were not shared as part of the presentation during the meeting, they were distributed in the report to TSNAP committee members.
After GOOD Morning Wilton reached out to Pardo to ask about those charts — all of which were published on the Town website — Pardo said the charts were not intended to be viewed by the public, and that Boucher had rejected the teardown option (among others).
“Toni Boucher rejected those other concepts as no[t] being feasible,” Pardo wrote in an email exchange.
He subsequently informed GMW the document had been removed from the Town website. It has since been re-posted, but the charts GMW had inquired about were deleted.
In the email exchange, Pardo told GMW there were “many considerations” as to why the teardown option was not considered feasible and “the two chosen were overall better options” — though it was unclear what criteria were used and by whom in making that determination.
GMW reached out to Boucher, to inquire whether it was the Town’s instruction or the consultant’s recommendation as to which options to develop for the presentation. She did not answer the question directly.
“The options developed met stated goals and they incorporated many of the other options. The other 7-8 options are available for the [TSNAP] members and for the BOS members to review if requested,” she wrote in an email to GMW.
When GMW asked Boucher specifically why the teardown option was not developed for TSNAP’s consideration, she responded, “The cost of a total rebuild and relocation expenses were cost prohibit[ive].”
Kaeyer painted a different picture in the TSNAP meeting on Wednesday. When asked by TSNAP Committee member Rich Santosky about the costs of all-new construction, Kaeyer said he believed the total cost would be “very similar” to the two renovation/expansion options discussed during the meeting.
Boucher also noted, “The Board of Selectmen has the final approval of what may or may not be presented to the public for their final vote… There [are] many more steps to go before anything moves forward. [TSNAP] is an advisory group only.”
During the TSNAP meeting, Santosky repeated what he considers the big question when it comes to Town Hall.
“We’ve all walked the buildings… we agree there’s a problem,” Santosky said. “The 90,000-foot question is, do we want to spend a bunch of money and do a renovation and maybe be somewhat restricted in the outcomes, or do we want to get bold and say, for the same amount of money, even though it may be more controversial, do we build a new building and get exactly what we want [and] that’s going to last us for the next 75 years? Are there compromises in a renovation that maybe limit us?”
Kaeyer responded that both Option A and B would result in a “like new” condition for the existing building, but acknowledged that all-new construction might offer more possibilities and a longer lifespan in some aspects.
Smeriglio added that the teardown option was still on the table but was “a sensitive subject.”
“We didn’t completely rule it out. We just showed these two [Option A and B],” he told the TSNAP committee. “We did talk about knocking down the building — we just thought that was going to be a sensitive thing… but that is on the table.”
As Pardo has mentioned in previous meetings, the facade of the building could be replicated in any new construction.
“I told Toni that I can recreate [that facade] with materials that will last well beyond my lifetime,” Pardo told the committee.
While Boucher had dialed in remotely to the meeting, she made no comments to the committee and did not appear to be present for much of the meeting.
Next Steps
TSNAP’s next meeting was tentatively scheduled for next Wednesday, Nov. 20, but is unconfirmed. Notice of the meeting will be posted on the Town website.
[Editor’s note: this story was updated to clarify the historic designation of Town Hall at the local level.]
A historical note about Town Hall. It is an important historic building and in 2018 was selected to be included on the Town’s Historic Resource Inventory list which was funded by a grant from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Our Town Hall was built in 1930, and dedicated on Valentine’s Day, 1931. According to the town’s Historic Resource Inventory list (HRI), the ceremony was attended by Governor Wilbur Cross. The building style is Colonial Revival, which was the design of most of Connecticut’s civil buildings of that era and harkens back to the classical past.
In the foyer are WPA murals painted by two Wilton artists, Thomas Herbert Smith and Frank Fleming around 1934. Their payment was supported by the first federal art sponsorship, a New Deal program called the Public Works of Art Project (PWAP) which was a crash relief program administered by the Treasury Department.
The renovated Town Hall should keep the original style and scale of the facade and preserve the foyer with its WPA murals. The building is a key element in a series of historic buildings and places on the east side of Rt 7, stretching from the Wilton Historical Society north to the historic church and nearby cemetery.
Thank you Allison. We updated the story to clarify the historic significance.
“ While Boucher had dialed in remotely to the meeting, she made no comments to the committee and did not appear to be present for much of the meeting.”
Our fearless leader! This woman comes off as lacking in nearly every facet of leadership.
Am I the only person confused? We just started construction the new police station and we have been told we need to spend $100 million over the next 10-15 years to improve/maintain our schools. Where are we getting $30 million for a new town hall? Is there a money printing facility in the town hall basement that the Wilton residents are unaware of? We authorized new windows in this year’s budget for town hall that were “desperately needed”, yet that money has yet to be spent according to the last report from the BOF. Why? How much are we paying this consultant to come up with detailed plans that we cannot afford? We just had a huge tax increase to residents last year due to the re-evaluation. Does the BOS think Wilton residents have unlimited income to support their plans?
the $100 million was for all town owned facilities, not just the schools. I believe that this project was/is included in the 10-15 year projections.