Arundel committee debates fire-station sketch after architects warn addition may trigger full code upgrade

Arundel’s select-board committee spent its meeting dissecting a new sketch plan for the town’s fire station, with debate centering on whether a 15-foot addition that connects to the existing apparatus bay would legally make the whole building subject to current Category 4/Level 3 code standards — a change that could substantially widen the project’s scope and cost.

The session opened with a review of the architects’ preliminary memo describing how the code officers would evaluate lateral-wind forces and whether an addition would increase those forces beyond a 5% threshold. "If that 5% threshold is met, the whole building would have to meet today’s electrical, plumbing and ADA standards," a committee member summarized from the architect’s briefing.

Why it matters: If the addition is treated as part of the same building for code enforcement, upgrades would not be limited to the new footprint; the existing structure could require full-system renovations, increasing hard and soft costs and complicating the project timeline.

Committee members also debated program size and operations. Architects and the preliminary program report recommended roughly 4,500 sq ft of additional space to meet operational needs; some members argued a 3,700-sq-ft proposal would be insufficient. A committee member put current staffing at "I believe we have 23 that are on staff right now," prompting discussion about turnout-gear storage needs. The architects advised storage for roughly 28–35 gear spaces based on the standards they reviewed.

Cost and funding were central. Members said earlier estimates ranged from $2.5 million to $3.4 million depending on whether soft costs were included. One member pressed for clarity on soft costs — bond counsel, furnishings, contingencies and full architect fees — and described a financing scenario using restricted TIF (tax-increment financing) reserves and a 12-year amortization. "If we all agree this is what we need ... the way we can afford that is by taking over a million dollars out of what’s in this already collected TIF reserve and we can amortize the balance over 12 years," the member said.

Operational design disagreements emerged, most visibly over whether to double-stack apparatus. Several members and the fire chief argued modern stations generally avoid stacked vehicle bays because stacking can complicate dispatch and access; others said stacking or adding rear access could preserve square footage and reduce cost. Committee members and staff also discussed relocating decontamination, laundry and turnout-gear storage to the existing annex to reduce new construction.

A recurring theme was process and prior work: some committee members said the May 9 sketch felt pre-decided and urged revisiting key decisions; others said the sketch evolved from months of committee input and code review. Several members suggested the architects had produced only code-updated drawings rather than rebalancing program elements to reduce cost.

Next steps: The committee agreed to ask the architect to produce alternative layouts and costed options, including a lower-cost design target and a re-sketch that pushes one wall back 15 feet, relocates offices and moves decontamination operations to the existing annex. Committee members discussed whether a member-produced sketch could accelerate the architect’s work and sought clarity on how the architect is compensated (hourly vs. percentage). There was no vote on a final plan at the meeting.

What to watch: The committee will compare the original May 9 plan to architect-produced alternatives and cost estimates before deciding whether to recommend using restricted TIF funds or seek voter approval for additional expenditures.