Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Selectmen review revised Station 2 design and $5.4M construction estimate, discuss bond timing
Summary
At a July 14 workshop, Lau Brezinger Brezinger architects presented a streamlined design for Station 2 and a construction estimate of about $5.4 million (including soft costs), with alternates such as a $173,000 mezzanine. Selectmen discussed bond timing, debt-service scenarios and next steps toward a public hearing.
On July 14, 2026, the Board of Selectmen held a special workshop to hear representatives of Lau Brezinger Brezinger, architects present a revised design and cost estimate for Station 2 (also referred to as Substation 2).
The presenter said the design keeps square footage roughly the same but simplifies the footprint into a rectangular plan, moves a double apparatus bay to the side of the building, and retains required bunks and office spaces. He described exterior materials (clapboard siding, concrete/stone base and a sloped roof that screens mechanical systems) and internal changes meant to limit slab cutting by reusing existing plumbing and repurposing decontamination space.
Why it matters: staff and selectmen framed the project as a public‑safety priority tied to long response times at the town’s fringes. The board discussed financing options and whether to place a bond on the November ballot; staff said timing matters because construction‑cost escalation adds roughly 5% per year.
The presenters and staff walked the board through the cost estimate. The architect reported a building construction cost of $3,750,000, demolition at about $85,000 and site development (septic, cistern, generator) around $665,000, yielding a base unfurnished building cost near $4,500,000. A 5% contingency and soft costs (items the presenter enumerated as furniture, third‑party inspections, kitchen hood, vehicle exhaust equipment, generator and signage) produced a total construction estimate the presenter placed at about $5,400,000.
On alternates and scope, the presenter listed a roughly 1,400‑square‑foot mezzanine priced at $173,000 as an option for additional storage and noted a modest $8,800 saving by substituting stone for vinyl in some locations. The team recommended phasing certain nonessential items so the base project stays closer to the $4.5M target.
Board members pressed for detail. A committee member asked what the mezzanine package included; the presenter confirmed it covered floor framing, finishes, guardrails, stairs and removable rails for forklift access but emphasized the mezzanine would remain open to avoid triggering code requirements for enclosed occupied space. Chair and staff discussed whether to fold furniture and certain security/IT items back into the project budget; the presenter modeled adding roughly $250,000 for FF&E, which would push the all‑in cost into the mid‑$5.6M–$5.7M range.
Staff ran a fast debt‑service scenario and said, "for every million, it's about $620,000 of interest over the course of 30 years," then told the board bond counsel was suggesting 4–4.25% as plausible borrowing rates to model. Staff recommended isolating this project on the ballot and educating voters about the EMS and public‑safety benefits if the board chose a $5–6 million bond.
Design features intended to protect personnel and equipment drew interest: the presenter described separate hot/warm/cold circulation, a dedicated decon space with extractor and shower, and relocation of turnout gear so contaminated items do not mix with day‑room or bunk spaces. The design team also recommended limiting heavy work on the apparatus apron to avoid repaving costs (which the presenter estimated could be about $110,000 if milling and redoing the pavement were required) and proposed screening rear equipment with a six‑foot chain‑link fence that could be phased as needed.
Several board members praised collaboration among the fire and EMS leadership and the design team and emphasized they did not want value engineering to remove core functions that would compromise long‑term usefulness. The committee discussed the site’s central location and projected response‑time improvements as part of their public‑safety rationale.
Next steps: staff said if the board wants the project on the November ballot they should move it to a meeting with a public hearing; one committee member moved to adjourn and the motion was seconded, closing the workshop. No binding vote to authorize a bond was taken during the session.
(Quotes in this article are attributed to role labels used in the meeting: Presenter (architect representative), Chair, Staff member, and Committee member.)
