Architects present phased $38 million plan to rebuild Greenburgh police headquarters, courthouse and EMS campus

Architect Ronette Riley and her consultants presented a phased master plan to the Greenburgh Town Board on Oct. 28 outlining how the town could stabilize a failing retention wall, reorganize circulation and build new facilities for police, emergency medical services and the courthouse.

Riley and the project team said the plan treats the current campus as the preferred site and is organized in stacked phases to keep court, police and EMS operations running. "The first part of the proposed plan would be to stabilize the retention wall of the pond," the project presenter said, noting the pond bank is currently failing and must be addressed before other construction proceeds.

Why it matters: presenters emphasized that the retaining wall work is urgent, that evidence/impound areas require secure storage, and that ADA shortcomings in the older police wing make rehabilitation complicated. The team framed the master plan as a way to avoid repeatedly moving temporary "swing" spaces and to reduce long-term staffing burdens caused by splitting functions across multiple off-site locations.

What the plan would build and the cost estimates: the consultants described a two-level precast parking garage (expandable later), a new three-story police building, a two-story EMS facility and a rehabilitation of the existing courthouse. "We are proposing keeping approximately half of the existing police department building," the presenter said, and described a circulation plan that separates secure police areas from public court entry. The consultant provided line-item estimates: "We're saying, 1,800,000 for the renovation of the existing courthouse and the existing police department. We're saying, 11,000,000 for the new, police building, the 3 story element, 6,000,000 for the EMS building that we showed, and then 5,700,000 for the parking building." The team said those line items tie to a Trophy Point estimate of roughly $38,000,000 once the team removed an explicit 20% contingency used by the estimator.

Timeline and phasing: the consultants described a 4—6-month planning phase, followed by stacked construction: a 6—10-month precast parking garage, then roughly 12 months for new buildings and renovations, and then another 12—14 months to rehabilitate the older police headquarters, for about 3.5 years total. The parking garage was described as serving temporarily as construction offices and material staging during later phases so court and police functions can remain operational.

Board concerns and trade-offs: board members pressed the team on parking counts, ADA compliance, how to handle holding cells and detainees during construction, and whether the adjacent nursery property (not town-owned) could be secured for spillover parking. Presenters said existing on-site parking is about 160 spaces and that the plan reduces covered parking from an earlier proposal of 340 to about 180 covered spaces to control cost. The team also emphasized options for phasing and designing adaptability to accommodate future needs.

Community engagement and funding: board members and consultants discussed public outreach and the possibility of a referendum. One board member suggested a campaign-style public engagement period if the board elected to put a package to voters: "I have a feeling that ... the public would probably be supportive," the board member said, arguing for transparency and a phased explanation of cost, timeline and benefits. Consultants recommended completing schematic design and community engagement work (commonly 6 weeks to 6 months depending on scope) so the board could set a clear financing plan, including whether to place a question on the ballot.

What happens next: presenters recommended moving to a schematic design phase to refine costs and to add civil and technical disciplines (geotechnical, environmental, MEP) into the study. Board members signaled general support for the master plan as a starting point, asked for more detailed numbers (including soft costs, furniture and escalation), and flagged immediate attention to the retaining wall as a priority. The board later moved to an executive session on personnel and legal matters.

Attributions: quotes and attributions above come from the project presenters (identified in the briefing) and from board members during the Oct. 28 work session. All direct quotations are taken from the meeting transcript and mapped to presenters and board members listed in the meeting record.