14° and Clear
Image
9-06-2025 8:07pm
OPINION: The Real Cost of Fire Station 1: Oversizing, Not Delay
Darlene Cancell
Editor
By Ada Zhong
As the September 9th Special Election approaches, Fire Station 1 supporters warn that a "No" vote will drive up costs through delays and inflation. The math tells a different story.
Construction costs do rise 3 - 5% annually, but the critical question remains: what exactly are we building?
If Westwood built a 26,000 sq. ft. station - comparable to Lexington’s 25,828 sq. ft. headquarters, which serves twice our population - the cost would be about $26 - 28 million using the higher end of industry-standard construction costs, $1,000 - 1,100 per sq. ft. including all project costs and contingencies (Messerschmidt 2024). This represents $10 - 12 million in savings compared to the proposed $38.1 million budget.
Even accounting for a two-year delay with 5% annual inflation, the additional cost would total just $2.6 - 2.8 million. Westwood taxpayers would still save $7 - 9 million by right-sizing the project. The “delay will cost more” argument only works if we accept an oversized 36,000 sq. ft. station. It collapses once we right-size the project.
No one disputes that Fire Station 1 has structural and safety problems requiring attention. However, these legitimate concerns don't justify 13 bathrooms, 10 bunk rooms, 8 offices, and a 8,142 sq ft basement. A properly designed replacement can solve safety issues without the excessive square footage that drives costs skyward.
The bigger problem is long-term debt. Property taxes won’t decrease when construction ends; they’ll fund bond payments for 30 years. This creates lasting financial pressure on seniors living on fixed incomes and young families already stretched by housing costs.
Supporters cite the contractors' September 15th bid pricing extension as justification for immediate action. However, sound municipal planning doesn't rush multi-decade financial commitments based on contractor pricing deadlines. In fact, construction costs are stabilizing in many regions as post-pandemic supply chain disruptions ease. Delay doesn't automatically mean higher costs.
The question on September 9th is not whether we value our firefighters - we all do. The question is whether we value fiscal responsibility.
A “No” vote is not a rejection of public safety. It is a demand for a station that meets our real needs, without locking Westwood into 30 years of unnecessary debt. Saving millions for taxpayers is worth the cost of a short delay.
Thanks to Westwood resident Ada Zhong for contributing this opinion article to Westwood Minute.
Westwood Minute takes no position on the opinion articles that it publishes, but seeks accurate and thoughtful commentary on topics that matter to our community, from a variety of differing viewpoints. Feel free to reply with your reaction below, or submit another perspective to WestwoodInAMinute@gmail.com.
For hyperlocal news, events, and opinion, subscribe to Westwood Minute!
You may also be interested in reading:
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Evidence is Compelling to Invest in New Fire Station 1
- Helpful comparative information on MA fire stations for voters to consider
- Fire Station 1 - Long-term planning of proposed station
- Special Town Election: Revote on Debt Exclusion for a New Fire Station 1 (UPDATED) (Calendar event)
Replies
Ada Zhong
Neighbor
9-07-2025 9:36am
Rockland’s fire station project offers a solution:
1. In 2023, voters rejected a $33.2M proposal.
2. The Select Board, Fire Chief, and Fire Station Building Committee responded with "Plan B," a design cutting costs by 21% to $26.1M.
3. On Sept. 13, 2025, Rockland will vote on this plan again.
👉 Westwood can do the same by demanding a leaner approach.
📌 Vote NO on the ballot question to push for a cost-effective solution.
3
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
Martha Sullivan
Neighbor
9-07-2025 10:18am
What was cut from the Rockland station to reduce the cost?
Nancy James
Neighbor
9-07-2025 9:15pm
The silence is deafening.....
N Jekyll
Neighbor
9-07-2025 9:54pm
I did some checking myself. The Town of Rockland is making a point to show voters they’ve been listening. There’s plenty of information posted on the town’s website: https://rockland-ma.gov/594/Fire-Station-Building-Project---NEW-Apri, but they don’t spell out what was removed from the plans. To fill in the gaps, I turned to the internet and here’s what I found.
Changes in the Rockland Fire Station PlanCost Reductions
- The original fire station proposal was priced at $33.2 million.
- The revised plan has been reduced to $26.1 million, reflecting a 21% decreasein cost.
Size Adjustments
- The initial design was for a 33,000-square-foot facility.
- The new proposal has scaled down the building's footprint to 25,000 square feet, a reduction of 22%.
Features Removed
- The revised plan addresses previous concerns about size and cost, but specific features that may have been included in the original proposal are not detailed in the available information.
Tax Impact
- The average annual property tax increase for the new plan is approximately $223 for a typical Rockland home, compared to the higher tax implications of the original proposal.
These adjustments were made in response to community feedback and previous rejections of the fire station plans.
Christina Martin
Neighbor
9-07-2025 3:52pm
Using Rockland as an example to follow skips over some important information. Voters in Rockland rejected "Plan A". Two years later they also rejected the "Plan B" proposal. That was in April of this year. They find themselves in a similar spot to Westwood in that their current option on the table failed to pass during the election in April but was approved at town meeting. Both towns have our special elections next week to determine how to move forward.
Martha Sullivan
Neighbor
9-07-2025 9:38am
What would be the cost of another study, redesign, and rebidding process for what you are proposing? Would it be low enough to maintain the savings of trying to reduce the construction cost?
Liangqing Zou
Neighbor
9-10-2025 10:38am
I know for sure, and I know you will agree that, all these additional works combine won't cost more than $38.1M * 20%, right? And, for the committe that propose this plan, isn't it their job to get the proposal right and reasonable in the first place? The people has spoken, twice in fact - obviously the proposal is not right and reasonable. Someone should take responsibility and resign - somebody is definitely not right for this job.
Nancy James
Neighbor
9-07-2025 11:20am
The hyper focus on Lexington is still interesting to me. What’s also interesting to me is that Lexington is now evaluating building a third station - because their current space is insufficient. Just like accurate facts matter, so do accurate comparisons and not cherry picking information.
s j
Neighbor
9-07-2025 12:45pm
We definitely need a new FS1, but we don't need to over build. I wish town leaders would stop listening to these people at Dore and Whittier , who of course recommend building bigger every time. We need town leaders who think of the tax payers first. We would all like to build a house of our dreams, but financial reality sets in and we don't. Build smarter not bigger!
Nancy James
Neighbor
9-07-2025 1:20pm
s J - I’m curious to learn your perspective on what exactly is oversized about the current station and what you would specifically remove. General statements like it’s 2.5 times the size of the existing station are not helpful since the existing station is significantly undersized.
The bays will be wider because of building code and the addition of a fifth bay is needed. Without making general statements about
square footage, number of bathrooms, etc. what are your specific thoughts on what should be removed so that the town doesn’t “overbuild?”
s j
Neighbor
9-07-2025 2:12pm
A training room with almost 50 seats, a separate bathroom on the first level for the part time mechanic, 10 bunk rooms when there only 7 staff on a shift, 2 public bathrooms on the first floor, seven offices on the second floor along with several bathrooms on the second floor. I think most people would agree for a town of under 16,000 people with an additional fire station in Islington, that the proposed FS1 is way over designed. Call me crazy
Christina Martin
Neighbor
9-07-2025 4:31pm
The training room is so that all the firefighters can attend training together. When they do this now they need to go to the library, bring their firetrucks and leave them idling so that they can still respond in a timely way to an emergency. I don't think this room is a huge driver of the cost.
The bathrooms are either required by code or necessary for the firefighters to wash off toxins and things like vomit, when they return from a call. Cancer is in the top 3 causes of death for fire fighters, so decontamination is a critical capability for a fire station to have. Even if you cut by 3 the number of bathrooms for showering, you are talking about savings in the pennies on your tax bill.
Here's what we are talking about. $8/month in savings in an unlikely best case scenario. If you cut the cost of the project by $10M (that's a reduction of OVER 25%) the average homeowner (1.2M is the average assessed value in Westwood could save $8/month. SOMETHING is going to be built, so these taxes are coming regardless of the plan we go with. The current plan allows us to start in September and build a fire station that should serve the community for the next half century. Or, the average resident can roll the dice, maybe save $8 per month, wait 2-3 years to get less, go through the process of a new designs, Town Meeting and a Ballot Election and maybe save nothing if inflation and tariffs drive the cost of the project up.
I'm voting YES.
Liangqing Zou
Neighbor
9-10-2025 10:32am
Hold on - so you are saying that even if you know the project is overpriced/oversized by 20%+ you would still want to fund it? And your entire arguement is just that $8/month extra is nothing? How about if you pay that $8/month for everyone that vote No? It's just $8 * 54% * 5492 households in total. Or, how about if all YESs pay $16+ and NOs pay nothing?
That's why people are voting NOs - even the YESs can agree that this is at least overpriced by $8/month.
Christina Martin
Neighbor
9-07-2025 4:08pm
This viewpoint considers inflation but neglects to consider the impact of tariffs on the total cost of the project.
More importantly, the viewpoint neglects to address how much the average home owner is going to save in the proposed best case scenario. It's not a lot.
If you take all the homes in Westwood and add up their assessed value and then divide by the total number of homes you get an average home value of $1.2M. Personally, my home isn't worth that much, but we are just using the number for an example. We also almost all seem to agree that the fire station does require replacement and that renovating the existing building for ~$36M doesn't make sense. So most of us are in agreement that the FS1 needs to and will be replaced. So taxes are coming one way or another. The question is, how significant is the savings to taxpayers? Is there enough savings for it to be worth delaying the start of the project by 2-3 years (if all goes well) and stripping out some of the functionality that firefighters and professional consultants identified the need for? Here is the sad news. We are fighting over $8 a month.
So to properly consider this, you have to ask yourself, "Is $8/month a significant enough savings that I would rather save that $8 than start the FS1 project in September? Is $8/month a significant enough savings that I would rather save $8 and have to go through the process of a new fire station design, town meeting and ballot again. Is $8/month a significant enough savings that I would risk the possibility that prices go up and I actually don't save any money AND the town gets lets fire station bang for its buck and has to wait 2-3 years to do so?" If that payoff makes the odds worth it to you, then you know what to do. Me, I'll be voting YES.
N Jekyll
Neighbor
9-07-2025 5:21pm
Thanks for laying out your perspective, but I see this differently.
First, nobody is “fighting” here except the people trying to frame it that way. What’s really happening is that residents are asking fair questions about cost, timing, and priorities. That’s not fighting, that’s democracy.
Framing the savings as “just $8 a month” also oversimplifies the issue. Tariffs, interest rates, and inflation aren’t static. They compound over the life of the project and can add up to far more than a few dollars a month per household. That’s not trivial when you look at the long-term burden across the entire town.
And let’s be honest, not every homeowner is sitting on a $1.2M property. Many residents already feel squeezed by taxes, and for them, even what looks like a small monthly increase matters. It’s not just about math on paper, it’s about affordability and fairness.
Finally, the decision isn’t just whether to “save $8 or not.” It’s whether we as a community are being responsible stewards of taxpayer money. Asking questions about scope, design, and timing isn’t the same as saying we don’t need a new fire station. It’s about making sure we balance urgency with fiscal responsibility and that we don’t rush into something that could have been done smarter.
For me, this isn’t just about pinching pennies, it’s about the fact that the town is overspending once again. The majority already said no. The town held a “listening session” but chose not to listen. Even if I wanted to vote yes, I’d vote no because every time the town doesn’t get the outcome it wants, it seems to come back with another vote until it gets what they want. That’s not respecting residents, that’s wearing them down.
