Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects Station3 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eastchester commissioners debate costly options to fix or rebuild Station 3
Summary
Commissioners discussed engineering findings at Station 3, weighing a minimal floor repair (to keep two engines in service) against demolishing and building a one‑story modern firehouse; rough cost estimates cited ranged from $2–3 million for floor remediation to $10–15 million for a full new build.
Commissioners at the June 13 Eastchester Board of Fire Commissioners meeting spent an extended portion of the evening discussing structural problems at Station 3 and whether to pursue a limited floor replacement or demolish and replace the building.
Commissioner Ranone summarized feedback from Highland Associates, the district’s engineering contractor, saying the architects believe a floor repair could be presented as a repair (rather than a full upgrade) but that the town’s building department might determine ADA upgrades are required if the scope increases. The board discussed two primary paths: a minimal plan to shore and replace the failing floor to keep the station operational for two engines, or a full demolition and one‑story rebuild sized to accommodate an engine and a ladder plus spare rigs.
Cost estimates discussed at the meeting included a rough $2–3 million price tag for the floor repair option (including associated work) and a $10–15 million estimate for a new firehouse, some commissioners said. Commissioners also noted that ADA requirements can add roughly 20% to project costs based on past work at Chester Heights. Board members discussed bonding and a potential public referendum if borrowing is required for a multi‑million dollar new build.
Commissioners stressed timing and risk: engineers may declare the floor unsafe in the near future if remediation is delayed, and shoring used 15 years ago was a temporary fix. Several members urged planning for the future rather than repeated repairs. The board asked staff to request a design and price proposal from Highland Associates for both a repair plan and a new‑building option to inform a formal decision.
Why it matters: Station 3’s condition affects apparatus placement and response patterns across the district; a decision will shape capital needs and could require bonding and public approval.
Next steps: The board directed staff to ask Highland Associates for proposals and cost estimates; if the board decides to pursue borrowing, bond counsel and municipal financing advisors will be consulted and any referendum would occur after final scope and cost are determined.
