Ridgefield Public Safety Committee Debates Cost Limits, Facility Options

RIDGEFIELD, CT — Members of the Ridgefield Public Safety Facilities Committee on May 14 debated how much weight cost should carry in future recommendations for police and fire facilities, while separate “tiger teams” continued developing competing site and building concepts ahead of a June 30 reporting deadline.

The meeting included updates from the committee’s working groups, extended discussion over operational needs and public expectations, and a decision to cancel upcoming meetings while subgroups continue their research and proposal development.

Committee members discuss cost, operations and voter expectations

Committee member Pamela Dunaway said working groups have been refining departmental space needs with input from police and fire leadership and consultant Kaestle Boos Associates.

Dunaway said the committee is trying to better organize town-owned property data and create educational materials explaining why Ridgefield’s public safety needs differ from neighboring communities.

“These decisions aren’t simplistic,” Dunaway said. “They’re very nuanced.”

See Also: Ridgefield Family Faces Rare Disease Journey With Infant Daughter Maisie

Dunaway said the committee has been reviewing comparative data, including staffing levels, call volumes and dispatch operations in surrounding towns, while also examining Ridgefield’s unique demands as a regional destination community.

She noted that 58 percent of motor vehicle incidents and citations issued in Ridgefield in 2024 involved nonresidents.

Committee member Ed Tyrell argued the committee must remain focused on what taxpayers are likely to support financially after voters rejected a previous $77 million public safety referendum.

“We know that it’s far, far lower than $70 million dollars,” Tyerell said. “Our job is to get the most for what the people will just pass.”

Dunaway disagreed with setting a hard price target before proposals are fully developed.

“We have no idea where the floor is,” Dunaway said, arguing the town first needs a clearer understanding of what residents would receive in exchange for the cost.

Tyrell later said he would not support another proposal approaching the prior referendum amount.

"We're not going to find out where the floor is by failing again, and that ain't happening for me," Tyrell said.

'Tiger teams' outline possible approaches

The committee’s three “tiger teams” are studying different facility concepts, including new standalone facilities, renovations of existing town-owned buildings and hybrid or combined approaches.

Committee Chair Wally Martinez said his working group has focused on separate new-construction facilities and has consulted mapping tools, environmental data and town staff while exploring potential sites.

Martinez said the group intends to develop “cheap, useful, adequate” options that could satisfy operational needs while remaining acceptable to voters.

“We’re never going to get the perfect,” Martinez said.

He said some future discussions may require executive session because they involve private real estate matters.

See Also: Ridgefield Weighs Time Restrictions Instead Of Leaf Blower Ban

Tyrell reported that his group has focused primarily on existing town-owned buildings, though he acknowledged the options appear limited.

“The town-owned buildings — that’s not a lot of options,” Tyrell said.

Another working group studying combined-facility concepts said it is evaluating whether some public safety functions could be distributed across multiple locations while maintaining operational effectiveness.

Committee member Adam Safir said the group is studying response times, operational logistics and examples from other communities.

“Response time is fundamental,” Safir said.

Safir added that Ridgefield’s current police facilities compare poorly with newer facilities in neighboring towns.

“If you go into our police stations vis-a-vis what we’ve been seeing in towns that don’t have our bonding capacity, don’t have our economics — kind of embarrassing,” he said.

Debate emerges over operational authority

Committee members also debated how much authority the committee has to recommend operational changes connected to facility design.

Dunaway cautioned against making assumptions about police or fire operations without direct input from department leadership.

“I just want to be very careful that we are looking at what they say are their operational needs,” Dunaway said.

Safir countered that the committee’s formal charge specifically requires balancing “operational effectiveness, fiscal responsibility, and community preference.”

“We’re working within the charge,” Safir said.

Martinez emphasized that no proposal from his group would move forward without consultation with department leadership.

“Nothing will be presented, at least from our working tiger team, unless it passes the smell test with the chiefs,” Martinez said.

Committee postpones future meetings

The committee agreed to cancel its next two scheduled meetings to allow tiger teams additional time to develop recommendations before returning for broader discussion.

Members also discussed creating standardized criteria for comparing future proposals, including cost, operational impacts, response times, site development challenges and long-term flexibility.

Dunaway advocated for a consistent framework to help both committee members and the public evaluate competing options.

“I want everyone to fully understand that trade: Money for what?,” she said. “What am I getting?”

Martinez responded that operational suitability and cost remain the primary benchmarks.

“Our job is to make sure that it operationally meets the needs as articulated to us by the leadership of fire, police, and fire and police,” he said. “And then the other benchmark is going to be cost.”

The committee is expected to continue work in subgroups before reconvening later this spring.