HAMPDEN — Fire station costs for the town were top of the agenda for the Board of Selectmen on March 20. A detailed overlook followed the release of an option summary from Tecton Architects where three construction scenarios based on a Mitchell Associates study were conferred.

What to actually address, what to build and/or expand and how much to spend took over a methodical discussion at the meeting.

Most prominent among elements of the study and option comparisons presented were the cost structures involved which on the highest end exceeded $16 million at the beginning of the planned 2024 construction.

An initial 2020 feasibility study had identified potential costs ranging between $2 million-$12 million. Rising costs in construction was emphasized as a contributing factor in the higher cost structure.
Recent community conversations and several point discussions have revolved around square footage, apparatus bay numbers and the safety needs for fire personnel.

Jeffery R. McElravy with Tecton Architects reviewed the overall needs assessments and overview of community response to questions on priorities with board members.

Three Programs had been presented to the public detailing square footage plans ranging from 12,276 to 16,651.

At present the existing building spans just over 5,000 square feet.

“Square footage is key, McElravy said,“ it makes all the difference in what things cost”.

The concept of sleeping quarters and apparatus planning seemed to fall away considerably in public interest as the plan options were presented as was options that included rising costs.

“The community wanted to do something for the Fire Department”, McElravy said, referring to the those involved in the presentations.

The second option with 14,662 square feet and costing between $10.9 and $12.3 million received public favoritism by a slim margin over the least expensive proposals.

Board Chair John Flynn questioned the lack of community participation and representation from the community leading to the results included in McElravy’s presentation.

“You saw the same 20 people at both meetings”, Flynn said.

McElravy concurred and expressed disappointment that the input from the community was not greater.
Flynn also referenced the original intent by the town regarding the Fire Department, which was to address safety for its members, “Have we lost sight of the car we were looking to buy originally?”, he asked.

Hampden’s current size and a lack in population growth was illustrated along with the presentation of expansion and improvement to the fire station and available services.

“Should we be looking at a cleaner, smaller solution that goes to what we need?” Flynn asked.

Previously referenced were current safety concerns and potential exposure threats to fire personnel as a result of contamination at fire or hazmat scenes.

Increasing bay size for the department’s existing apparatus as opposed to space increases for future vehicles and equipment was also prioritized.

A detailed report compiled from previous meetings addressed necessities at their current level which also identified and prioritized firefighter health, operational health and bay capacity.

McElravy also offered overall options to the board, citing ways to actually move forward. Those plans spanning from taking no action, effecting simple repairs to the existing structure or renovations.

He also offered the possibility of conceptual design using the collected data and a line-item programming exercise with the board to potentially go through each individual need and cost for inclusion or elimination.

His final suggestion was for the board to set a budget goal and design ways to meet that budget number.

The idea of compromising was then offered.

McElravy told the board “It used to be that renovating was a lot cheaper than adding on ... there are ways of looking at how you utilize the existing space that can save you real money.”

That information offered, McElravy directly inquired of the board exactly what financial range would be affordable for the community.

“I want to know where the threshold is where I’m wasting your time and mine,” he said.

Saying a $17 million option was “pie in the sky”, Flynn said that “kicking it around, we always felt this would be a in the single-digit-million project ... we’re not taking it up to 10.”

“If we explore that, it will be outside of my contract”, McElravy said.

The desire to maintain the lower end of the budget was reiterated by the board but they also voted to have McElravy continue working on the project and further explore the options.

The board now expects to revisit the planning options by the end of April.