Station 6 feasibility: architects and staff give $8–9M estimate; board asks for cost validation and lower‑cost options

Prince George County Board of Supervisors · March 24, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Sign Up Free
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

Fire and EMS staff presented updated cost estimates for a proposed Station 6 based on a reduced 8,500‑sq‑ft program; hard costs are estimated in the $8.7–9.4 million range and the board asked staff to validate estimates, consider prefab/metal building alternatives and return with firmer numbers.

Prince George County fire and EMS staff and architects presented an updated feasibility and cost estimate for a proposed Station 6 on March 31, and board members challenged the preliminary budgets and asked staff to pursue cost‑saving options.

Architects said they revised the program to mirror Station 7 (about 8,500 square feet), removing one apparatus bay from earlier, larger estimates. A detailed estimator’s hard‑cost estimate put renovation/expansion at roughly $8.7M and new construction options near $9.3M. A local general contractor produced midrange estimates of $8.7M–$9.45M; the presenters said those figures are conservative and do not include designer fees, permitting or escalation beyond the hard‑cost estimates.

Several supervisors pushed back on the high numbers, noting a recent nearby volunteer station that reportedly broke ground for under $2M, though staff and architects explained that the volunteer example likely used a pre‑engineered metal building without similar living accommodations or site costs. Board members asked staff to refine the site assumptions, confirm geotechnical and stormwater needs, and compare prefab and stick‑built options. Staff also noted Station 7 design drawings could shorten design time but must be adapted to current codes and modified for any chosen site.

The board directed staff to gather more detailed cost comparisons and to meet with supervisors who volunteered to help validate low‑cost approaches. No final decision on design or funding was made; the presentation was informational and staff will return with refined numbers and design choices.