Last week, the Greenwich Board of Education received a presentation from an outside consultant on elementary school capacity and utilization — a study commissioned at the BET’s request to independently verify GPS’s own internal projections. The full report is available here, and you can watch the consultant’s full presentation on YouTube.

A few things stood out to me — especially as a District 11 representative.

Riverside is the biggest pressure point. The data projects Riverside School will exceed 110% utilization in seven of the next ten years — the most severe crunch in the district. The ed specs for the planned Riverside renovation include capacity for 84 additional students, which is the current proposed response to that pressure.

District 11 sits right in the middle of this. Two of our neighborhood schools — North Street and Parkway — appear in the data on opposite sides of the utilization ledger. North Street is projected to be over capacity while Parkway has room to spare. They are next-door neighbors school-wise both in D11. The same over/under pattern appears elsewhere in town: Cos Cob and Julian Curtiss, North Mianus and ISD. In each case, modest catchment area adjustments between neighboring schools could smooth out the imbalances without new construction or temporary classrooms.

So why hasn’t that been tried? Redistricting has essentially never been attempted in Greenwich — at least not since Parkway School was reopened in 1993. The BOE and BET have historically preferred voluntary magnet programs and capital solutions (build more seats rather than shift students to available ones). That’s a legitimate approach and its had some impact. But it’s also an expensive one — and one that’s a policy choice, not a requirement.

There’s not much swing space. The system also has limited buffer capacity for unexpected enrollment growth or emergencies. The 2021 North Mianus ceiling collapse is a recent reminder of why that matters. When a school suddenly can’t be used for weeks, months, or years, where do the students go? Right now, the honest answer is: we don’t have a plan.

The board did discuss redistricting. Board members acknowledged during the meeting that elementary redistricting is a difficult but necessary conversation, particularly to avoid classroom splits and maintain appropriate teacher-to-student ratios (the goal is staying below 95–97% capacity per classroom). One member also suggested sharing the consultant’s report with Planning & Zoning to help anticipate enrollment pressure from new residential developments, a sensible idea.

Greenwich has a habit of treating redistricting as politically toxic and capital spending as the safe default. That calculus made more sense when building was cheaper and enrollment was growing uniformly. Neither is true today. It’s time for the BOE to put boundary adjustments on the table before committing to the next round of construction.

District 11 has a direct stake. If you’re a North Street or Parkway parent, you should read the report and watch the presentation. These projections will shape town and GPS spending decisions in the years ahead. The more residents are engaged before those decisions are made, the better chance we have of influencing them.

Construction begins this month on the North Street Bridge replacement — a project years in the making that will impact commutes for most District 11 residents and other who cross through D11 from now through Spring 2027.

The bridge, which spans West Brothers Brook between Cotswood Road and Macpherson Drive, was built in 1909, rebuilt in 1950, and deemed in critical condition after its 2022 inspection. That inspection wasn’t just a warning sign — it triggered emergency repairs, a 4-ton weight limit, and the launch of this $4.52 million replacement project.

For those of us who drive North Street daily, this is long-overdue news. But it comes with real disruption ahead — and this bridge is just the first in a series of infrastructure projects that will affect this corridor through the end of the decade. Read on for a clear picture of what to expect with this project and beyond for North Street.

The Big Headline: An 81-Day Full Road Closure This Summer

The most significant impact is a complete closure of North Street from June 8 through August 28, 2026 — up to 81 consecutive days. DPW timed this deliberately to coincide with summer school recess, sparing the morning and afternoon school-run chaos that would compound the disruption. If the contractor finishes key phases early, the road reopens ahead of schedule.

Before and after the full closure window, North Street will remain open but with alternating one-way traffic during construction hours. DPW has built in explicit protections for peak commute times — no lane restrictions during the 6–9 a.m. and 3–6 p.m. windows, Monday through Friday.

Project Timeline

• Construction begins March 2026

• Alternating one-way traffic begins March 2026

• Full road closure starts June 8, 2026

• Full road closure ends August 28, 2026

• Alternating one-way traffic resumes Late August 2026

• Estimated project completion Spring 2027

All dates are weather-dependent and subject to change.

Daily Traffic Schedule (Outside the Full Closure Period)

• Monday–Saturday

  • 6:00am – 9:00am ✅ Normal two-way traffic

  • 9:00am – 3:00pm ⚠️ Alternating one-way (police/flaggers on site)

  • 3:00 – 6:00 p.m. ✅ Normal two-way traffic

  • After 6:00 p.m. ✅ Normal two-way traffic

• Sunday No construction

Construction hours: Mon–Fri 7 a.m.–6 p.m., Saturday 9 a.m.–5 p.m.

The Detour Route

There is an official detour. The Town has had it approved by the Connecticut Department of Transportation since early 2025, and it’s designed to accommodate all vehicles including large trucks and emergency responders.

The official detour is 2.7 miles and runs:

North Street → Fairfield Road → Old Church Road → East Putnam Avenue → North Maple Avenue

The detour will be proposed for both directions of travel. DPW has been clear that people familiar with the area will find their own shorter routes — but this is the official signed path for all vehicles.

One thing to watch: DPW has also committed to temporary traffic calming measures along the detour corridor and nearby side streets if cut-through traffic becomes problematic. That could include additional signage, variable message boards, and even temporary speed humps on smaller residential roads. The Town will be monitoring surrounding roadways throughout construction.

What the Town has not yet published is a detailed detour map for the 2026 closure — but here is what was shared in prior public meetings.

What to Expect During Construction

Residents near the bridge will notice increased activity, including:

• Micropile installation — less invasive than conventional pile-driving, but expect noise and some vibration

• Crane operations for placing precast footings, abutments, and deck units

• Tractor-trailer deliveries of materials and equipment

No utility interruptions are currently anticipated. Water flow in West Brothers Brook will be maintained throughout.

Why This Matters Beyond the Commute

About 7,000 vehicles cross this bridge every day, many of them heavy trucks that have been exceeding the posted 4-ton weight limit for years. The new bridge will be built to carry all standard road vehicles without restriction. Emergency responders will follow the official detour during the full closure and can access all residences without traveling through the work zone.

The project is funded almost entirely by the state through LOTCIP (Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program), with the Town responsible only for design costs, cosmetic upgrades, and a novel performance incentive for early completion. Construction is being performed by McCarthy Concrete, Inc.

Who’s Affected: Schools and Houses of Worship

The North Street corridor serves an unusually dense concentration of institutions. DPW’s own planning documents identify the following as directly affected by construction impacts and the detour route:

Schools

• North Street Elementary School

• Greenwich Country Day School (Pre-K through High School)

• Greenwich Catholic School (Pre-K, Elementary & Middle)

• Greenwich Academy (two campuses: Pre-K/Kindergarten and Elementary/Middle/High School)

• Brunswick School (Upper School)

• Central Middle School

• Greenwich High School

Places of Worship

• Saint Michael’s Church

• Greenwich Reform Synagogue

• Second Congregational Church

• Christ Church of Greenwich

• Temple Sholom

• First Church of Christ, Scientist

• Grace Church of Greenwich

DPW has committed to providing direct notifications to schools throughout construction. The summer timing of the full closure was explicitly chosen to avoid the school year — but summer activities and families with fall schedules on this corridor should be aware that alternating one-way traffic will resume in September and continue through project completion in Spring 2027.

This Is Just the Beginning: A Decade of Infrastructure Work Ahead

The North Street Bridge is the next domino for this area (after the GHS fields remediation and Central Middle School construction). DPW’s October 2024 public presentation laid out the full pipeline of major infrastructure projects affecting this corridor — and residents should plan accordingly:

• [ongoing] Central Middle School construction Dec 2024 – Summer 2027

• North Street Bridge (West Brothers Brook) March 2026 – Spring 2027

• Route 1 Bridge at Greenwich High School (State project) Spring 2027 – Spring 2028

• Fairfield Road Culvert (Old Church Rd to Hillside Rd) Summer 2028*

The Fairfield Road Culvert project will not begin until the Route 1 bridge is complete.

The coordination between the North Street Bridge and the Route 1/GHS bridge project has been an explicit concern — DPW has been in active discussions with CTDOT to ensure detour routes don’t overlap and compound each other. That’s a reasonable precaution given that the two projects were originally slated to overlap.

Taken together, this corridor faces meaningful disruption well through 2028. This is infrastructure that needed attention so stay informed and engaged as plans evolve.

How to Stay Informed

• Project page: greenwichct.gov/2440

• DPW project manager: Finton Sweeney, 203-622-7783

• Community input form: Available on the project page above

• DPW social channels: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter

Sources: Town of Greenwich DPW press release (March 9, 2026); North Street Bridge project page; DPW Public Information Meeting No. 2 presentation slides (October 9, 2024); Greenwich Free Press coverage of January 2025 Board of Selectmen meeting; Patch coverage of DPW detour presentation.

The Greenwich Board of Education has presented its proposed operating budget for the upcoming 2026-2027 school year.

The proposed bottom line is $207,178,854. This is a 3.13% increase ($6.3M) over the current year’s revised budget, just under the guidelines set by the last Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET).

The primary drivers fueling the increase are fixed costs: contractual salary obligations rose by $5.2M, and transportation costs saw a significant jump of $2.3M. To offset these pressures and stay under guideline, the administration found savings through staff reductions aligned with declining enrollment in upper grades, alongside adjustments to summer school and utility budgets.

The district is also requesting a $17.8M capital budget to address infrastructure needs, including maintenance, the Greenwich High School pool replacement, and upgrades at Julian Curtiss.

Spent some time trying to understand raw data released from the Greenwich Town Assessor’s 2025 property revaluation (required by Connecticut law every five years).

My analysis is based on valuations published by the assessor, including:

• the 2025 revaluation manual

• the District 11 valuations property by property (2025 and 2021)

A big insight is the considerable impact teardown/rebuilds have had on select streets such as Dairy Road, which had several that completed and sold during the period. Streets like these seemed to have the biggest above average valuation increase.

The average property value assessment in District 11 increased 27.3% and the median 26.2%.

Top ten District 11 streets by valuation increase:

Bottom ten District 11 streets by valuation increase:

I made a map of the top 10 and bottom 10 District 11 streets based on their 2021 to 2025 change in valuation. I can’t really discern any pattern to the top streets. Most of the bottom 10 (red pins) seem to be closeby to North Street (except Paddock, Echo, and Stepping Stone).

You can appeal your 2025 assessment until February 20th by filing paperwork with the Greenwich Board of Assessment Appeals.

Furthermore, state regulators recently blocked Eversource’s attempt to dump Aquarion onto the Regional Water Authority for $2.4 billion, leaving the utility’s future control and decision-makers in limbo.

This has triggered a quiet, persistent question in District 11 and beyond: Why are we letting outsiders or bureaucrats dictate the price of our most essential resource? Should the Town of Greenwich just buy the system (including the Putnam Lake facility on DeKraft Road in District 11)?

It’s a seductive idea. “Municipal Water.” Local control. No corporate profits. That’s how it works for 85-90% of USA households.

But before we grab the pitchforks (or garden hoses), what do the numbers on what a hostile takeover of the Greenwich water system actually look like? It is complicated, expensive, and fraught with political landmines.

The Price Tag: A Cool Quarter-Billion

How do you price a water system? You can’t just Zillow the Putnam Water Treatment Plant.

Based on the recent valuations in the failed sale of Aquarion’s total Connecticut assets, experts value these utilities at roughly 1.7 times their infrastructure “base.”

Greenwich represents about 10-12% of Aquarion’s customer base, but our assets (reservoirs, premium treatment plants) are high-value, and our consumption is high.

The Estimated Fair Market Value: $250 Million to $350 Million.

That is the starting line for negotiations. Eversource would fight tooth and nail for the higher end.

The Case FOR Buying: Taking Back Control

If the Town can stomach the sticker price, the arguments for municipal ownership are compelling, centering on long-term savings and sovereignty.

1. Immunity from Wall Street “Return on Equity” This is the big one. Every time Aquarion raises rates, a chunk of that money goes to ensuring a 9-10% profit margin for Eversource shareholders. A municipal utility doesn’t need profit; it just needs to break even. Theoretically, rates would only rise to cover actual pipe repairs and operations, permanently flattening the curve of your water bill.

2. The “AAA” Advantage Private corporations borrow money at higher corporate interest rates. Greenwich has a sterling AAA bond rating. We can borrow money dirt cheap (3-4% municipal bonds). Over 30 years of financing hundreds of millions in infrastructure upgrades, that difference in interest rates saves local ratepayers tens of millions of dollars.

3. Tax-Free Operations The Town does not pay federal income tax on revenue, nor does it pay sales tax on materials bought for upgrades. That is an immediate 20-30% operational savings that can be reinvested directly into aging pipes instead of fed to the IRS.

The Case AGAINST Buying: The Financial Sinkhole

The arguments against buying the system are rooted in political reality and fear of debt.

1. The “Hidden” Tax Increase This is the argument that usually kills municipalization talk dead.

Right now, Aquarion is a private company. They are likely one of the top 5 property taxpayers in Greenwich. They pay the Town millions annually in real estate and personal property taxes on their pipes, plants, and land.

If Greenwich buys the system, that property becomes government-owned and therefore tax-exempt.

Overnight, millions of dollars vanish from the Town’s General Fund revenue. To fill that sudden hole, the BET would have to immediately raise property taxes on every single resident. You might save on your water bill, but your mill rate would go up to compensate.

2. Double the Debt Greenwich prides itself on low debt, usually operating on a modified “pay-as-you-go” model. Issuing $300 million in bonds to buy a utility would nearly double the Town’s debt load overnight. This could threaten that precious AAA rating and crowd out funding for other crises, like school renovations or flood remediation.

3. The “Competence Crisis” The RTM has recently hammered the administration for lacking coherent long-term capital planning for the assets we already own (schools, rinks, drainage).

Do we really want to add a complex, EPA-regulated chemical treatment and distribution system to the Town’s portfolio? Running a water system requires specialized engineers and 24/7 emergency crews. Greenwich would likely have to hire a private firm to run it anyway—meaning we pay the $300M purchase price but fail to eliminate the management fees.

The Bottom Line for District 11

The idea of kicking corporate interests out of our water supply feels good emotionally. But financially, it’s a high-stakes gamble involving massive debt issuance and the paradox of losing tax revenue to gain asset control.

If this idea is proposed, the critical question to ask the Selectmen and BET is simple:

“How many millions in property tax revenue do we currently collect from Aquarion annually, and exactly how much will my property taxes have to rise to replace that money if we take them over?” This impacts all residents and taxpayers in addition to the long-term borrowing that’d be needed for the acquisition.

Therefore, in all likelihood the proposed transaction is probably the lowest cost to residents path ahead (despite the significant rate hikes expected over the next decade).

The Proposal

The tentative plan would replace GHS’s existing pool facility with a roughly $60 million natatorium built on the site of the school’s current tennis courts. The tennis program would be relocated to North Street School, approximately 1.5 miles from the GHS campus. The proposal also includes a long-planned second egress road for the high school campus.

Student Impact

Tennis supporters, including parent and former GHS tennis captain Alex Orbanowski, have expressed concern about displacing more student-athletes from their home campus. While other GHS athletic teams practice and compete on campus, the tennis program would require additional transportation to North Street School. Some roads between the two schools are hilly, have blind turns, and lack sidewalks, raising safety concerns for students who might miss team transportation.

D11 Traffic Concerns

The North Street corridor already experiences significant congestion during school hours due to North Street School, Greenwich Country Day School, and Greenwich Catholic School. The addition of a tennis complex with up to eight courts, restrooms, and concessions would bring additional daily traffic from practices, matches, and spectators to the area.

Compounding Infrastructure Projects

Two major DPW projects are already scheduled for the North Street area:

• North Street Bridge replacement project (starting this spring)

• Fairfield Road Culvert replacement ($2 million construction budget, scheduled for 2027)

The Fairfield Road project will impact traffic on Fairfield Road South over East Branch Brothers Brook. Residents are concerned about the cumulative effect of multiple construction projects and increased daily traffic from a new tennis facility on top of that.

Potential Community Benefit

One potential advantage of the North Street location: District 11 currently has no town or public tennis courts. Adding tennis facilities to the North Street School campus could provide a beneficial community amenity for D11 residents outside of school hours, assuming the courts would be available for public use similar to other school athletic facilities.

Questions About the Natatorium Cost

At $60 million, the proposed natatorium would serve a limited number of student swimmers compared to other athletic programs. Critics note that Greenwich already has established private swim facilities and question whether such a significant capital expenditure is appropriate for a program serving a relatively small percentage of the student body.

Alternative Approach

Some community members suggest separating the second egress road—a legitimate safety need—from the natatorium project. A standalone emergency access road project would address campus safety at significantly lower cost while allowing tennis courts to remain on campus. And it could be prioritized separately in the town’s capital planning process (instead of skipping it by bundling these projects unnecessarily together).

Next Steps

The project is currently in the feasibility study phase by the Board of Education, and no final design has been approved. The projects are not currently in the town’s capital budgets. District 11 residents can share feedback with:

• Greenwich Board of Education BoardofEdMembers@greenwich.k12.ct.us

• DPW Commissioner James Michel James.Michel@greenwichct.gov

• First Selectman Fred Camillo acamillo@gmail.com

• Northeast Greenwich Association (D11 Neighborhood Association)
  info@NortheastGreenwichAssociation.org

The proposed increase if approved would take effect in November 2026.

Aquarian’s last rate increase request in 2022 was reject by PURA, the state regulator of private utilities. The PURA chair at the time in under investigation for malfeasance.

Details from the CT Post.

“The amount of speeding observed in school zones is staggering, and these measures are essential to help prevent a potential tragedy.” — Greenwich Police

Starting tomorrow November 19,2025, Greenwich Police will be issuing tickets automatically from five new speeding cameras at schools. They’ve been in “warning” mode for a month, but consequences start tomorrow.

• North Street School – North Street **In D11/Northeast Greenwich**

• Eagle Hill School – Glenville Road

• Brunswick School (Lower School) – North Street

• Greenwich Academy – North Maple Avenue

• Central Middle School – Orchard Street

  

The blue markers on the map above indicate the school locations with speed cameras. Four additional speed cameras are installed and in warning mode.

• Parkway School – Lower Cross Road **In D11/Northeast Greenwich**

• Central Middle School – Indian Rock Lane

• Glenville School – Riversville Road

• Greenwich High School – Hillside Road

They will begin issuing tickets December 17, 2025.

First violation is $50 and subsequent ones $75 each. Here is more information from Greenwich Police.

That’s why I read the entire 308-page invitation to bid (Project No. 22-16) that the Town recently released. I wanted to see, in black and white, the specific way Greenwich Public Works is implementing the BET’s direction and protecting D11 residents from a project that drags on forever.

My main takeaway? We got a distinctive non-standard town contract. It has been specifically engineered with massive financial penalties and strong incentives to force the contractor to get the work done within a very specific, non-negotiable window. Will be very interesting to see the market response, cross your fingers!

Here are the most important details you need to know.

1. The 71-Day Summer Closure is Locked In

The contract explicitly defines the maximum period of full road closure. This is the single most critical detail for our community.

The 71-day full closure is scheduled to begin on June 8, 2026, and must end on or before August 28, 2026.

This 10-week window is clearly designed to fit between the last day of school and the start of the next school year. All other work must be done using alternating one-way traffic, not a full closure.

2. The 2.7-Mile Detour

So, where will traffic go during that 71-day closure? The bid package confirms a formal “Detour Plan” will be in effect 24/7. The contract specifies this will be an “approximate 2.7-mile detour” to manage traffic around the site. The contractor is also required to notify the Town and all emergency first responders 14 days before the closure officially begins.

3. The $40,000-Per-Day Hammer

This is the most powerful tool the Town has.

If the contractor fails to reopen the road by the August 28, 2026 deadline, they will be penalized $40,000 for every single calendar day they are late.

This “Milestone Liquidated Damage” is separate from any other penalty in the contract. It’s an exceptionally high number and shows the Town is not bluffing.

4. The $200,000 Early-Bird Bonus

The Town isn’t just using a stick; it’s also offering a carrot. The bid includes a $200,000 “Milestone Incentive” payment.

To get the full bonus, the contractor must finish and reopen the road 10 days early, by August 18, 2026. The bonus is reduced by $20,000 for every day they are late after that, disappearing entirely on the August 28 deadline.

This gives the winning bidder a 200,000-dollar-reason to finish ahead of schedule.

5. Peak-Hour Traffic is Protected

The total project is scheduled for 275 days, so what happens during the other 204 days outside the summer closure?

I was pleased to find this: the contract explicitly prohibits the contractor from interfering with traffic during peak school and commuter hours. During the pre- and post-closure phases, any alternating one-way traffic is not allowed during these windows:

• 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

• 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

• (Monday through Friday)

This is a direct and enforceable protection for our daily commutes. But wow, it imposed significant constraints on the bidders.

6. Police Overtime Factored In

The contract requires police officers for traffic control during the alternating-traffic phases. The Town has already budgeted an estimated $208,000 for this line item, which will be a real cost to taxpayers.

7. The Summer Storm Risk

This is the part I’ll be watching closely. The contract requires the builder’s temporary water-bypass system (cofferdams, pumps, etc.) to be designed to handle only a 2-year storm event.

While the final bridge is designed for a 100-year floodway, the construction site itself is vulnerable to being overtopped by a major summer storm or hurricane.

The contract states that typical weather is not an excuse for delays, but a declared “catastrophic” event could grant the contractor a time extension, potentially pushing them past the August 28 deadline. This might lead to arm-wrestling based on who exactly determines a storm is “catastrophic."

8. What About Flooding?

Many of you have asked if this project will fix the flooding in the area. The simple answer is that it will help traffic safety, but it won’t address flooding. The new bridge will be higher and is designed to improve the flow of West Brothers Brook during a 100-year flood. This will reduce a major bottleneck, but it is not a comprehensive flood mitigation project for the entire watershed (which depends on comprehensive improved all along the watercourse that haven’t been planned).

9. It’s Complicated: A “Bridge for the Pipes”

Finally, the bid confirms just how complex this job is. The contractor must design and build a separate temporary bridge just to hold the existing CNG gas main and Aquarion water main, while also supporting the temporary Eversource poles. This utility work is a major reason for the project’s cost and timeline.

My Takeaway

This is a novel, most time-focused construction contracts I’ve seen from the Town. The financial penalties for failure are severe, the incentives for success are strong, and the protections for our school and commuter traffic are written in black and white. Its also not the low-cost option. That’s an outlier for Greenwich Public Works projects. The BET agreed to spend more than the minimum to adjust the replacement plan to ameliorate expected community impact. This is an important experiment to learn from: will D11 residents get the “bang for the buck” of reduced inconvenience that the town is investing in extra costs?

The Town has done its job in creating a contract that holds the builder’s feet to the fire. Now, it all comes down to what bids come in and then the winner’s execution.

As your RTM member, I will continue monitoring this project closely. Please share this with your neighbors and let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Disclaimer: This post represents my opinion as a member of the RTM and not the RTM, its committee, or the Town of Greenwich.

While the RTM vote was performative, representatives expressed frustration with the BOE’s negotiating process and their intra-town communications about the agreement, which was reached after state-mandated arbitration had already begun.

More details in the Greenwich Time.

The transaction is pending before its Connecticut regulator PURA. Its likely to approve the application, which was supported by the legislature and governor in their budget bill. State senator State Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich is opposed to the sale and has introduced a bill to stop it. But it’s currently awaiting PURA action. Hearst Newspapers have the details.

Project options have been announced and there is a form and “story map” on Greenwich DPW’s website for public comment about which option is preferable.

This could be a preview of more multi-use trails in Greenwich mid-country as Greenwich explores additional traffic and pedestrian safety improvements. A prior proposal to create a similar multi-use trail along District 11’s stretch of the Merritt Parkway still be on the “parked indefinitely” shelf since the 2010s.

Greenwich tax assessor Lauren Elliot joined the Northeast Greenwich Association Sunday evening to update residents on progress of the 2025 property revaluation. The state-required revaluation will adjust every property’s taxable value in line with market value changes since the last assessment in 2022 (which was delayed because of Covid disruptions).

Key insights:

• 2024 grand list was $36.9 billion

• District 11 is 1,959 households out of 21,550 total and represents 17% of Greenwich’s total value

• First tax bills based on new values will be July 1, 2026

Read the details here.

The Northeast Greenwich Association annual meeting last night featured a detailed update on the plans for the replacement of the North Street Bridge. The $3.7 million project is mostly paid for by the State of Connecticut, except for a $200,000 incentive payment paid by the town to incent ahead of schedule completion (a town first).

Key insights included:

• Scheduled start March 2026

• Full road closure June to August 2026

• Intermittent disruptions (lane closures) unti December 2026 estimated completion

Here’s the full handout

The Northeast Greenwich Association is holding its annual meeting Sunday at Greenwich Country Club at 5pm.

PROGRAM
5:00 Happy Hour Meet and Greet
5:45 Welcome and Call to Order | Robert P. Pizzella, Treasurer
5:55 Board member Lee Gerkin on the coming North Street Bridge Project
6:05 Northeast Greenwich Association Year-in-Review
6:15 First Selectman Fred Camillo
6:25 State Representative Tina Courpas
6:40 Town Assessor Lauren Elliot

The LWV Greenwich RTM Candidate Guide is useful pre-reading so you can learn which 22 of 23 District 11 RTM candidates you will vote for on the back of your ballot (don’t forget to flip and vote for all offices!).

This year the LWV Greenwich asked each candidate:

1. A brief biography

2. What are one or two pressing challenges of the upcoming term and how would you approach them?

3. What is your position on the BET’s $4M reduction in the proposed school budget?

4. How many terms have you served on the RTM?

5. What are your current committee assignments?

The District 11 responses start on page 98. My responses are on page 104.

Allowed under CT labor law: a three-year $444m teachers’ contract locked-in by a subcommittee of three elected officials with no meaningful ability for review and rejection by the town legislature responsible for appropriations. CT law should be changed.

Read my commentary in the Greenwich Free Press:

https://greenwichfreepress.com/letter-to-the-editor/leader-greenwich-rtm-needs-real-authority-over-labor-contracts-239113/

You can see the large curve at the leftmost part of the gray line in the image of the Merritt end-to-end. The highway was relocated before construction to avoid Henry Croft’s Grahampton estate on Clapboard Ridge Road.

According to the Greenwich Time:

Another transportation oddity that has perplexed generations of commuters is the unusual curve on the Merritt Parkway through Greenwich, defying the otherwise straight path that runs parallel to Route 1 to the south. Blame it on a wealthy industrialist, Henry Croft, who died in 1947. He refused to have his estate along Clapboard Ridge Road and Grahampton Lane disturbed by the parkway, completed in 1938, and he and other politically connected backcountry residents — called “blockers” at the time — successfully pushed the parkway to the north of them, creating a bulge that persists to this day.