The meeting’s primary focus was the engagement with RGB Architects to conduct a feasibility study of Westport’s facilities. RGB Architects brought attention to their extensive experience in architecture and project management since 1946. Their methodology for the feasibility study includes initial introductory meetings to gather insights on project scope, political sensitivities, and a thorough physical evaluation of the buildings. They aim to assess structural integrity, utility conditions, and site access, with an emphasis on the potential for repurposing existing structures rather than opting for demolition. The architects highlighted the importance of a detailed process for cost estimation, utilizing internal and external resources to ensure accurate financial projections, especially in light of construction cost trends stabilizing at an estimated 4-6% inflation.

The committee members engaged in an interactive dialogue with the RGB team, posing questions about their approach and expressing a keen interest in the firm’s experience with energy efficiency projects. RGB Architects emphasized their proven track record in securing rebates and incentives for energy-efficient projects, which could reduce overall costs. The team also discussed their strategy for timeline management, which involves creating a Gantt chart to clearly communicate project milestones and deadlines. This approach aims to foster collaboration and engagement with the community, with plans for public meetings to gather input on the feasibility study.

The committee also deliberated over the potential uses of the historic town hall and the old high school. The town hall, located in Central Village, carries historical significance, and its preservation is a priority for many community members. Discussions included potential stakeholders, such as the Council on Aging and the recreation department. The conversation touched upon the challenges of doing nothing, as any decision will involve costs, whether for demolition, mothballing, or redevelopment. They also discussed the notion that selling the land would not yield financial recovery, as the property is considered a valuable asset due to its public water supply and playing fields.

The committee emphasized holding all-department meetings to facilitate communication among different town departments, allowing them to present their ideas, thoughts, and concerns. This approach was deemed beneficial since departments often do not communicate effectively during separate meetings. Concerns about achieving community consensus were raised, acknowledging the existence of previous studies and efforts that had not resulted in actionable outcomes. Financial considerations were identified as potential barriers, with discussions on energy updates and code-related improvements complicating budget constraints.

The committee outlined a schedule for the feasibility study, beginning with an information-gathering phase over six weeks, followed by a nine-week concept development phase involving design charrettes to gather community input. The plan also included a phase for finalizing costs, leading to a draft report incorporating input from both the town and the community. The final report would detail space programming for municipal departments, evaluate building efficiency, and provide cost analysis and conceptual plans.

Community engagement strategies were a focal point, with suggestions for hosting informal gatherings to encourage public participation. It was proposed that hosting events with food could draw more residents into discussions, creating a welcoming atmosphere for sharing ideas. The need for a roundtable format was suggested to foster open dialogue, allowing community members to express their opinions and brainstorm potential solutions collaboratively.