Plymouth committee urges voters to approve roughly $20 million bond for new police facility

Chairman Mike Aet, who leads the Plymouth Municipal Facilities Ad Hoc Committee, told residents at a Sept. 3 public hearing that the town’s police department has been “shoehorned into the basement of the town hall” for decades and that “we have to do something” to address serious space and safety problems.

The committee presented a plan for a new, roughly 16,000-square-foot facility (about 12,000 usable square feet) with separate adult and juvenile holding cells, interview rooms, secure evidence-processing and storage, training and roll-call space, male and female locker rooms, an armory, covered patrol parking and a separate outbuilding for bulk evidence and vehicle processing. Aet said the committee reduced the original 21,000-square-foot proposal by about 5,000 square feet to lower costs.

Chief Karen Kursigi read material prepared by Sergeant Chris Latimer describing operational and legal risks at the current facility: lack of sight-and-sound separation for juveniles, intermittently unsafe holding-area temperatures, no ADA-compliant holding, inadequate evidence storage and no secure private interview space. “Each of these issues presents serious risk of legal challenges, financial penalties and loss of accreditation,” the statement read. The statement referenced House Bill 6004 (the police accountability and transparency bill) and said the department is pursuing accreditation but that the facility’s limitations hamper compliance.

Committee members traced the project’s history to studies beginning in 1986 and reiterated that the town hired consultants in 2020 for space-needs and feasibility work. Cost estimates have risen with market escalation; the committee reported earlier estimates of about $12.55 million (2020) and an interim $16 million figure, and said a December 2024 estimate using a local contractor’s detailed analysis placed the total a little over $20 million.

Aet and Bill Hamsey, who chairs the town’s Community Investment Fund ad-hoc committee, said pursuing local approval could help unlock state and federal funding. The committee cited North Branford as a precedent where a successful local referendum helped the municipality secure roughly $4.5 million from the state bonding commission.

Finance staff said the project would be financed with general-obligation borrowing if voters approve a referendum. Officials showed two forecast models for the tax impact per $100,000 of assessed value: one high‑level model at about $29 and a more detailed model at about $22, averaging roughly $26 in the near term for the new debt service portion; both models show a spike in debt-service cost around fiscal 2028 before a decline over a 20‑year bond schedule.

Presenters emphasized uncertainty: the ultimate taxpayer impact will depend on grant awards, future interest rates, grand-list revaluation and the town’s choice of borrowing schedule. “If we do get state and federal funding after a referendum, we would not need to borrow the full $20 million,” a presenter said.

During the public comment period, many residents — including retired officers, long‑time employees and business owners — urged approval, citing officer safety, evidence-handling risks (including fentanyl exposure), recruitment and retention concerns, and the moral case for better working conditions. Several residents asked whether the town had revisited reusing existing buildings; presenters said Prospect and Fischer schools and other downtown parcels were not viable because they were occupied, subject to sales or integral to downtown revitalization plans.

Officials said the preferred site is town‑owned land behind Town Hall to avoid acquisition costs and to share parking and utilities. The committee estimated the procurement and construction schedule as: about three months to prepare bidding documents, roughly six months for design, and approximately 14 months for site work and construction, with occupancy around September 2027 if the referendum passes.

No formal vote on the resolutions occurred at the hearing; the session provided information and took public comment ahead of the referendum process.