Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Swansea deliberative session backs $3.5 million plan to replace Station No. 2

2225618 · February 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Voters at the Town of Swansea’s deliberative session approved Article 4, a $3.5 million project and $2.5 million bond to replace Fire Station No. 2, after extended debate about location, cost and department leadership.

Town voters approved Article 4 at the Town of Swansea’s 2025 deliberative session, authorizing a $3.5 million project to replace Fire Station No. 2 and a $2.5 million bond to pay for it.

Supporters, including members of the citizen fire station committee, said the building in the basement of Town Hall is inadequate for modern firefighting needs and a safe, separate station is necessary. “The cost for this article is the same as saving $300,000 per year for a new fire station,” Jay Ward, chair of the fire station committee, said, adding the committee sought a cost-effective location and design. “Please support the fire department,” Ward said.

Opponents questioned the chosen site and the town’s management of the fire department. A longtime resident urged voters to consider alternatives and said the plan “has been voted down six times,” arguing location and community buy-in remain unresolved. Another speaker criticized frequent turnover in fire chiefs as an operational concern separate from the building debate.

Selectmen and others stressed the town has been setting aside money in a capital reserve fund and that the bond was structured to produce “no tax impact” in the immediate year because funds are being saved to offset debt service. Supporters noted the town already holds funds for the project and that not acting now would likely increase costs in the future.

After discussion the moderator called the vote; the article passed by voice vote (tally not specified in the record).