Danbury City Council public hearing draws broad public support and sharp questions over $49 million safety, infrastructure bond

The Danbury City Council held a public hearing on Aug. 15 on two proposed bond ordinances, focusing public comment on a $49,000,000 public safety and infrastructure bond that would fund a West Side fire station and other projects. Speakers who called for immediate action argued the city’s West Side is underserved and that a new station would cut response times; other residents and financial professionals said the ordinance is too vague and urged the council to return the proposal to planning with project-level cost breakdowns.

The hearing opened at 7 p.m. in the Danbury City Hall council chambers with the presiding officer reading the published notice and explaining a three-minute limit for each speaker. The notice described two proposed ordinances: one for $3,000,000 in capital improvements and a second for $49,000,000 in planning, design, land acquisition and public improvements. No one spoke on the $3,000,000 item; public comment centered on the larger bond.

"It reads like a wish list," said Cameron Coe of Fairfield Court, urging the council to send the measure back to the planning committee for a full budget breakdown before taking on bond debt. Coe argued residents deserve transparency about exactly where the money would go before approving long-term borrowing.

Several current and former firefighters and fire officials urged voters to approve the larger bond. "Adding a new station in the West Side will bring down response times and provide care to the citizens of Danbury more quickly and efficiently," said James Babcock, a firefighter. James Hines, also a firefighter, said delaying the project for more planning would "put us more behind and keep our citizens and our firefighters at a higher risk." Retired Fire Chief Pete Ciesinski said a strategically placed station could also improve the city's ISO insurance grading and help lower rates.

Deputy Fire Chief Joe Hallis told the council the department has a plan for a proposed Engine 27. He said the intended staffing model is three firefighters and one officer (four additional positions), that a "quint" apparatus with equipment would cost roughly $2.5 million, and that 11 new firefighters have been budgeted to begin the academy in January. Hallis said there is no plan to close Engine 26 and that the department's call volume has roughly doubled since his early years on the job.

Opponents and questioners stressed the lack of project-specific dollar amounts and oversight language in the ordinance. "How do we come about the $49,000,000 number?" asked Warren Levy of Pilgrim Drive, who said the ordinance language that gives discretion to the city engineer and public works director reads too broadly and risks creating a slush fund. Mark Kmesa, a chief financial officer and West Side resident, asked what the city would do if $49 million proved insufficient and warned against rushing the process during an August meeting when many residents are on vacation.

Mayor Roberto Lyleth defended the timing and format for putting the bond question to voters, saying the proposed ordinance was written with council leadership and that placing the question on the November general-election ballot would let the most voters weigh in. "At a general election, that's where the most amount of people in Danbury can say yes or no," he said.

The public comment period closed after a wide-ranging exchange of technical details, personal testimony and budget questions. A motion to close the public hearing, made by Warren Levy and seconded by Julie Miliano, was approved by voice vote. The council then recessed for a five-minute break and said members would meet as a committee of the whole to review posted agenda items.

What happens next: the ordinances remain proposed and on file in the legislative assistant’s office; the council has not yet taken formal votes on either bond ordinance. The public may review the full text of the proposed ordinances at the legislative assistant’s office before further action or any council vote.