Whitestown Fire Board backs RFPQ to study rebuilding or refitting Station 271

The Whitestown Fire Board on Sept. 3 voted 4–0 to recommend that the Town Council allow the fire department to issue requests for qualifications (RFPQs) to gather firm cost estimates for either building a new Station 271 or refitting the existing Station 271.

The recommendation follows a presentation by the fire chief outlining response-time mapping, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 and Insurance Services Office (ISO) considerations, and incident-location data that showed coverage gaps on the town’s north and central corridors.

Fire Chief (unnamed) told the board he wanted “to get the discussion going to be able to go to council and seek the guidance to move forward with an official RFPQ, to be able to get some actual cost to move forward with the station project.” The chief presented Google Maps–based four‑minute response polygons from current station locations and said those polygons, combined with projected development, support relocating 271 to Main Street and Albert S. White or to a nearby site around 500 East/200 South to improve future coverage.

Board members raised alternate views. Eric Nichols, Fire Board member, said he was “more inclined to lean towards the need for Station 3 to the north,” arguing growth on the north corridor would require a new station there. Other board members, including Dan Patterson, noted that moving 271 would create near-term coverage gaps unless the town secures land and proceeds promptly with a Station 273 build to cover the north and west. Several members urged the department and council to identify possible parcels quickly if a relocation proceeds.

The chief and other board members discussed mutual‑aid patterns with neighboring departments (Lebanon, Zionsville, Center Township and others in Boone County) and emphasized that automatic aids exist but do not replace planning for Whitestown’s primary response area. The chief also said ISO rating impacts are tied chiefly to proximity to creditable water sources (fire hydrants) rather than station location itself.

Board members debated whether to seek two separate RFPQs (one for a new station and one for a refit) or to include alternate bids/options in a single solicitation. After discussion the board amended a motion so the recommendation to council would cover issuing RFPQs that allow proposals for either a new Station 271 or a refit of the existing Station 271 (the motion's wording allows the chief and staff to structure the RFPQ(s) in the manner that best solicits both types of proposals). The motion passed unanimously: “All in favor… Aye. Opposed, nay. Carries 4 0.”

The chief said a published RFPQ could be issued rapidly if council approves the courtesy communication; he estimated a 45–60 day turnaround after publishing and suggested responses would likely be back near the end of the calendar year, with the board reviewing proposals in late fall or early winter. The chief also said the RFPQ responses would give much more precise cost estimates than the informal $10–12 million ballpark discussed in the meeting.

Board members emphasized that acquiring land for future stations should be a near‑term priority if the board ultimately favors relocating 271. One board member said several developers had informally expressed willingness to carve out land for civic uses and offered to connect the department with those developers if the RFPQ process moves forward.

The board’s action on Sept. 3 was procedural: it directed the chief to take the recommendation to town council as a favorable recommendation to publish RFPQs and to return with bids and designs before any binding construction decisions are made.

The board adjourned after the motion was carried.