Tyngsborough fire-station committee seeks public input, design cuts after ballot loss

Tyngsborough — Members of the Tyngsborough Fire Station Building Committee and residents spent the June 3 meeting dissecting why a recent debt-exclusion question to fund a new fire station failed and mapping steps to try again.

The committee’s leaders and staff said turnout and the headline price drove the outcome, and they proposed next steps that include targeted listening sessions, an online feedback portal and revised design estimates from H2M to produce a smaller, clearer ballot ask. “If nobody wants to spend more than $20 million, we need to figure out whether 18 or 19 million is doable and what that buys,” a committee member said during the debrief.

Why it matters: Voters declined to approve the committee’s plan after the town saw a top-line estimate reported at about $24.8 million. Committee members emphasized that the design aimed to meet long-term operational and safety needs for firefighters — not to be ornate — but acknowledged the price tag and the ballot language confused some residents. Staff and members stressed that changing sites would likely raise costs, and that some features (for example geothermal systems and masonry facades) could be candidates for reduction if the town asks for a smaller scope.

What the committee will do next: Staff recommended asking H2M for a limited follow-on engagement to produce revised drawings and new cost estimates, potentially without a new appropriation because the original schematic-design contract came in under the $300,000 appropriation. The committee discussed phasing the project (asking for final-design, owner’s project manager and limited site work first) to present voters with a smaller, more-contestable number, while accepting the risk that spending on design could leave the town with costs if a later construction vote fails.

Residents who spoke urged clearer comparisons and concrete tax-impact figures. “Show what we’re putting in those bays and what the tax increase looks like per household,” resident Bill Coughlin told the committee, asking for side-by-side examples of other towns’ projects and updated per-household cost estimates for different price ranges.

Construction perspectives and cost-saving ideas: Tommy Foster, a local construction professional, urged the committee to consider prefab or precast components and off-site assembly to reduce prevailing-wage labor time on site. “If we can cut half of that labor cost out of the equation…we might get closer to the 15–18 million range that voters will accept,” Foster said.

Constraints and cautions: Staff warned that Community Preservation Committee (CPC) funds are unlikely to cover demolition or core construction work—CPC might support later-site enhancements or historic- preservation elements, but not primary demolition. Committee members also noted that many soft costs (design contingency, OPM fees) amount to several million dollars and are not easily eliminated.

Timeline: The committee asked H2M to prepare revised estimates in time to consider an October town-meeting request; staff said revised drawings would need to be ready by mid-August to meet that schedule. The committee also scheduled a follow-up meeting to finalize a public-feedback form and outreach plan.

Actions at the meeting: The committee approved the April 22 meeting minutes and adjourned at the end of the session. No formal new authorizations or contract awards were recorded in the transcript.

The next committee meeting was set for two weeks after the June 3 session to finalize survey questions and a schedule for community listening sessions.