LETTER: Practicality, not Sentimentality, Should Guide Town Hall's Future

Acting sentimental is not always practical and preservation is never cheap.
We have tough fiscal and practical decisions to make about our Town Hall. On one hand we want to preserve our identity through historic places but on the other hand we must be respectful of those demanding best practices and effective government.

A municipal building, specifically the Town Hall, is purely an expense borne by taxpayers. It’s an office building that generates no income and fosters no commerce. It is however a symbol of the town. It is the brick and mortar representative of our community.

Let’s be clear about one indisputable fact. No one has suggested that Town Hall be abandoned, demolished or in any way disposed of. The Town Council’s current decision is to vacate and evaluate options.

There are some that feel like it’s economical to do nothing. Doing nothing has brought us to a point where we’re running out of options. Even if we do the bare minimum to address the violations, we will have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and OSHA or ADA issues will still haunt us. We can’t today, and still couldn’t then, consider a disabled applicant for Town Manager.

There are others that want to preserve at any cost. We as a community can decide to renovate, restore and reoccupy both the Town Hall and Annex buildings but let’s not fool ourselves. It will be expensive. Yes It will be noble but it must be understood that it’s for the sake of preservation and not economy.

The first step down that path will be to hire a restoration architect. The architect will analyze both buildings for structural integrity, code compliance, and historic relevance. The architect will develop drawings that can be used to apply for relief using the historic code variant. Quotes can be generated and a true budget can be determined. This takes a long time. And as any owner of an antique of any sort will attest, historic renovation is prideful but not thrifty.

There has been an allegation that the Town Hall was inspected using the ‘wrong code’. That’s not so. The inspection is the same for historic buildings as for any other, but appeals are considered by a different body using a variant code that allows for historical based leeway. In many cases practical variances can be obtained for the sake of architectural integrity. There are no variances for structural deficiencies or life safety issues. These will need to be unconditionally addressed. The historic view of a
disintegrating foundation is that it must be restored, not ignored. The historic view of a second exit in case of fire will be yes, we need it. Public safety will trump Yankee frugality every time.

More importantly, the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage Commission will not be fooled by a ruse to stall for 3 to 5 years while a government center is built. Any historic variance will be
conditional and for the sake of long term preservation.

We may decide to build a new government center or we may decide to renovate and reoccupy. We might decide to repurpose Town Hall as a community or arts center. Either option will need taxpayer
approval. The only way to allow for an informed opinion would be to begin a lengthy comparative public process.

Until today, every decision regarding these buildings has been made based on a ‘least expensive’ basis. If we stay or reoccupy, it will be a ‘most expensive’ alternative. That’s not necessarily a bad decision but
don’t believe that it will be cheap.

Palmer Beebe
North Kingstown