Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Station Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee: survey shows broad support for new Tyngsborough fire station but voters worry about cost
Summary
A survey presented to the Tyngsborough Fire Station Building Committee showed most respondents support a new fire station but flagged cost and tax impact as top concerns; the committee declined an expensive outside re-estimate and agreed to prioritize scope reductions using its existing cost reports.
The Tyngsborough Fire Station Building Committee heard on July 15 that while most survey respondents support constructing a new fire station, many remain worried about the proposal—ost and tax impact.
Staff member said the survey, published June 25 and pulled for reporting July 8, had about 220 responses then and roughly 240 as of the meeting. "85.5% reported that they thought it did in fact need a new fire station," the staff member said, and that 49% of respondents reported voting in favor of the project while roughly 35% reported voting no. The staff member added that 56% of respondents said they would "definitely" support a new station if project costs were reduced and another 24% said "probably yes." The staff member cautioned the survey did not ask how much reduction would be required to change votes.
The committee framed those results as mixed: members noted that many respondents indicated they voted in the prior election and that, among those who took the survey, support for a new station was substantial, but that cost and tax impacts ranked as the top factors influencing respondents ecisions.
Chair summarized follow-up outreach by volunteers who contacted respondents who left contact information, saying most were already supportive of the $24.8 million proposal but that a few suggested alternate locations or lower cost targets in the $20 million to $21 million range.
On process, committee members and staff agreed the next step is a prioritized exercise to identify scope items that could be reduced and to show the operational impact of each cut. "We have the cost concepts report," the staff member said. "I don't think it's financially wise to pay $28,000 for another estimate when we can model changes from what we have." Committee members suggested reducing bays, changing exterior materials or trimming interior square footage as potential levers, and emphasized the need to quantify impacts on firefighter safety, training space and building longevity before final decisions.
The committee asked members to submit priority lists and for staff to circulate a simple template for documenting proposed cuts and their operational impacts ahead of the next meeting.
The meeting concluded without a formal vote on a new project scope; staff said raw open feedback from the survey would be shared after the survey closed and that more detailed, spreadsheet-based analysis should be ready for the committee—y the next meeting.
