Ridgefield Public Safety Facilities Panel Advances Planning, Weighs Costs And Timeline

RIDGEFIELD, CT — The Public Safety Facilities Committee on March 26 continued its review of potential approaches to upgrading police, fire and emergency facilities, focusing on cost modeling, public outreach and the timeline for delivering recommendations to town leaders.

No formal votes were taken during the meeting, with members emphasizing ongoing data collection and analysis as they work toward a report due March 31 to the Board of Selectpersons.

Public urges comparison to “do nothing” option

During public comment, a Prospect Ridge resident Kirk Carr urged the committee to explicitly compare any proposed solution against a “do nothing” alternative, noting that previous referendum votes effectively reflected that choice.

“You need to be able to tell people why the alternative you select is better than 'do nothing',”Carr said.

Committee members acknowledged the point, with Chair Wally Martinez saying any recommendation would need to clearly explain its advantages over maintaining current facilities.

Another resident referenced Wilton’s recently completed police station, asking whether Ridgefield officials had consulted with that town. Committee member Steve Scalzo said he had spoken with a representative of Wilton’s building committee, who indicated the facility largely matched police department requests and was approved by voters with strong support.

Financing framework outlined

Scalzo reported meeting with the town’s bond advisor to review financing options, describing a typical structure using 20-year general obligation bonds with level principal payments.

Ridgefield’s triple-A credit rating allows the town to borrow at favorable rates, he said, with interest currently estimated to average around 3.25 percent over the life of a bond.

“The point of the exercise really is just to make sure that if this project goes to approval, it will be bonded in the most cost-effective way possible,” Scalzo said.

Members said detailed estimates of taxpayer impact would be developed once project options and costs are more clearly defined.

Outreach effort expands

The committee reported about 400 residents have signed up for its public alert system, part of an effort to share factual information about emergency services and facilities.

Pamela Dunaway, who is leading outreach, said the goal is to address public misunderstandings about staffing, call volume and service demands.

“There are misunderstandings about the kinds of calls we have… how demographics affect the kinds of calls we have,” she said.

Members discussed balancing informational updates with future public forums, emphasizing that communications should remain neutral and not favor specific project options.

Debate over consultants and cost estimates

Committee members also discussed whether to engage additional consultants, including third-party cost estimators and architectural firms, as they move from analysis to evaluating options.

David Brickley said an independent cost estimator “is going to be very vital,” particularly as the committee compares potential scenarios.

Members debated how much to rely on prior architectural work completed for earlier proposals that failed at referendum. Some cautioned against restarting the process entirely, citing time and cost constraints, while others stressed the need for transparency.

“We have to be… clear that we’re doing it completely on the merits,” Martinez said.

The committee is working on a “zero-based” approach to evaluating needs, including reassessing space requirements and testing assumptions against multiple options.

Timeline pressures highlighted

Members acknowledged the compressed timeline to deliver recommendations, with the committee tasked with completing work in several months that has previously taken years.

“This is a race to the finish, but being done in a reasonable way,” Martinez said.

The committee expects to refine needs assessments and develop potential options in the coming weeks, with smaller “tiger teams” assigned to focus on specific aspects such as facilities, sites and costs.

Insurance risks discussed

The committee also heard from Margaux-Jane Lansen, the chair of the town’s Insurance and Risk Management Committee, who outlined how municipal insurance coverage works and how facility conditions can affect risk exposure.

Lansenl said insurance premiums can rise or fall depending on whether facilities increase or reduce risk.

“If buildings are not needed, then it’s just looking to spend money… [but] if facilities… are not in the best conditions, that could lead to some support on the insurance carrier too,” she said.

She added that undisclosed building issues could affect coverage, while improved risk management practices may reduce costs or generate rebates.

Next steps

The committee plans to submit a progress report to the Board of Selectpersons by March 31 outlining its work to date, including operating procedures, communications strategy and the site selection process.

Further meetings will focus on defining needs, evaluating options and developing cost ranges before advancing recommendations for potential voter consideration.