Politics & Government
Ridgefield Panel Debates How to Evaluate Future Police, Fire Facility Options
Ridgefield's Public Safety Facilities Committee debated evaluation criteria and public outreach for future facilities.
RIDGEFIELD, CT — Members of the Public Safety Facilities Committee spent much of their June 25 meeting debating how future police and fire station proposals should be evaluated and presented to the public, with committee Chair Wally Martinez and member Pamela Dunaway offering differing views on how the process should unfold.
The committee took no votes on potential sites or facility recommendations. Members unanimously approved minutes from the previous meeting before entering executive session to discuss a privately owned property being considered as part of the site selection process.
Much of the open meeting focused on developing a framework that will be used to compare potential locations for new or renovated police and fire facilities.
Related: Ridgefield Public Safety Committee Authorizes Soil Testing For Potential Sites
Dunaway presented a draft matrix containing dozens of evaluation criteria, including property acquisition costs, site development expenses, response times, code compliance, operational requirements, future expansion potential and possible offsets from selling existing town-owned properties. She said she hopes the committee can consolidate those factors into a smaller set of categories that residents can easily understand.
"What I most want here is some set of at least general criteria by which we can discuss with the public the various positives and negatives of each scenario that we present," Dunaway said.
Committee Chair Martinez generally agreed with organizing the criteria into broader categories such as location, property suitability, operational standards and cost, but cautioned against making the evaluation process overly complex.
He said the committee's role should be to identify viable sites and establish broad facility parameters while relying on architects and public safety professionals to develop detailed building layouts.
"I, for one, would not be in favor of wrapping ourselves too much around the axle and actually designing the interior of the facility ourselves," Martinez said.
See Also: Ridgefield Voters Approve Danbury Road Sidewalk Easements, Hear Pickleball Project Update
The discussion became more pointed when the two members disagreed over how recommendations should ultimately be presented to residents.
Dunaway argued the committee should focus on objective data and clearly explain the tradeoffs associated with each alternative, citing factors such as emergency response coverage, development costs and future expansion opportunities.
"If you spend zero, you're far away. If you spend $100, you're next to the heat map. Make a choice," Dunaway said. "So it's not about marketing, it's not about swaying a jury… It's about presenting the criteria."
Martinez countered that, regardless of the data presented, any eventual referendum would still involve political decision-making by voters.
"There were two referendums, both lost," Martinez said, referring to previous proposals for combined public safety facilities. "The ultimate say would be by the voters."
Dunaway responded that she viewed previous votes primarily as financial decisions rather than political ones and said the committee's responsibility is to educate residents by presenting factual comparisons among potential options. Martinez maintained that the committee must also recognize that public policy decisions are inherently political because they ultimately depend on voters.
See Also: Ridgefield P&Z Approves Short-Term Rental Rules, Rejects Main Street Sign Proposal
Member Adam Safir sought to bridge the disagreement, telling the committee their responsibility is to produce a thorough and well-supported recommendation for the Board of Selectpersons while recognizing that elected officials and voters will make the final decision.
"The quality of our work is what's at stake," Safir said.
The committee also discussed the importance of evaluating future sites for expandability, emergency response performance, soil conditions, grading, parking, security, and overall development costs. Member David Brickley said site preparation represented roughly 23 percent of projected costs for the previously proposed combined facility and noted that selecting a property requiring less extensive site work could significantly reduce overall expenses.
Members also discussed the committee's timeline after Dunaway said First Selectperson Rudy Marconi had indicated that the Sept. 15 target date outlined in the committee's charge could be adjusted if additional time is needed to produce a more complete recommendation. Martinez said he had been working under the assumption that the deadline was fixed and wished that guidance had been communicated sooner. Brickley cautioned that construction inflation continues to increase project costs over time, estimating that delays could add roughly $270,000 per month to a project of the size previously discussed.
Before adjourning the public portion of the meeting, committee members agreed to continue refining the evaluation criteria and to develop multiple scenarios that can eventually be presented to both the Board of Selectpersons and the public for review.
