Public Safety Building FAQ Provided by the Princeton Fire & EMS Association d/b/a Friends of Public Safety WHY: The opposition is very concerned about a lot of things and sent out a number of postcards. Are they accurate? We don't think so. If you haven't lived in town for a long time, you may not know that this same group of people (many of whom did not want to fund $1 million to get internet in town about 10 years ago) have fought this initiative for over a decade. Way back, this project cost $8 Million; it passed the 2/3 vote, but the naysayers mobilized at the last minute and killed it at the ballot vote. Several years ago, the price was up to $12 million, and they convinced a selectboard member to hijack a town meeting with the promise of a cheaper building in six months. All that never materialized (because there is no cheaper solution), and now we are up to several million dollars more. At the most recent town meeting, they proposed an amendement and promissed a new plan within 6-12 weeks, even though they never consulted an architect or designer--that amendment didn't pass, and here we are today. CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO ON THEIR ANTI-CAMPAIGN. The present building is failing with structural and health issues, the town has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on plans and consultants, every possible way to save costs has been investigated, and the cost is only going to continue to incease. There are no miracle solutions. Why is the Town asking us to fund a new public safety building? The current Public Safety Building (circa 1890s) in the Town Center is unsafe and inadequate. It is noncompliant with health and safety standards including the standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It is structurally failing, contaminated with mold, and subject to standing water because of inadequate drainage. The apparatus bays are too small for modern equipment, risking equipment damage, personal injury, and delayed response times. There are no bunkrooms for overnight staff or for extended emergencies. It has insufficient detainee facilities including no useable sally port for secure detainee transfer, no holding cell, and inadequate booking and evidence storage areas. With no decontamination area to clean gear contaminated with hazardous materials, there is a health and safety risk to personnel and their families. The Emergency Operations Center is insufficient per the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency. COST: What is the total project cost? The total estimated project budget is $17,573,913. Subtracting funds already committed and funds remaining, the amount voters are being asked to fund is $16,650,000. Of that amount $1,000,000 will be reimbursed by a federal grant in phases during construction. The amount to be borrowed is $15,650,000. Why does it cost so much? The project cost is in line with current construction costs and the code requirements demanded of public safety buildings in Massachusetts, including prevailing wage (a state-mandated minimum wage for workers on public construction projects); building codes; “essential building category 4” requirements with enhanced structural design to ensure the building is disaster resilient; Department of Public Health standards; professional standards of NFPA and OSHA; ADA; fire protection systems; and a professional owner’s project manager (OPM) to oversee the project, prepare time schedules, and monitor the performance of the project. Construction costs per square foot have been rising at an average of 6% annually. In the years since the pandemic, construction costs have skyrocketed and continue to rise, partly because of industry labor shortages and partly because of rising costs for building materials like steel and lumber, among others. Prices continue to increase sharply. Delay in construction will result in increased costs. What will be the tax impact for the project cost? The tax impact will slowly increase until 2030 and thereafter remain the same until the end of the 30-year borrowing period at $1.08 for every $1,000 of assessed property value. The impact on the tax bill for the average home valued at $598,967 will be around $645 per year, or $54 per month. Does this project cost more than comparable projects in other communities? No. While it’s difficult to directly compare projects in different communities as they vary based on factors including prevailing wage rates, functional requirements, site issues, and existing infrastructure (like water and sewer), our construction costs per square foot are comparable to the average construction cost per square foot for other current public safety building projects in Massachusetts. I read that buildings in Peterborough, NH, and Marion, MA, have been constructed for much less per square foot. Can’t we build our Public Safety Building for those same costs per square foot? These examples are not comparable. The Peterborough project was only a fire station; it did not include a police station. Construction in NH is not subject to the same building and health codes, prevailing wage requirements, OPM requirement, or bidding processes. The Marion project was bid years ago for a Department of Public Works garage, not a public safety building. Accordingly, Marion’s project was not subject to the substantial building and health codes that apply to public safety buildings and which drive much of their cost. Also, as discussed above, construction costs have risen sharply since these projects have been completed. Some in the community have proposed an alternative $14.785M budget. Wouldn’t this save us a lot of money? No. This would require the expense of costly design and construction documents, new permits, and a re-bid process, likely resulting in a year or more of delay while construction costs increase. (It has taken more than two years to design and prepare the current detailed architectural plans.) If we are unable to design a building with essential features and standards to this budget or fail to get bids at this budget, we’d have to hold another special town meeting to ask voters to approve more funding, with risk of halting the project once again. Even if this budget were to be achieved, it would only save the owner of an average-valued home in Princeton less than $7/month. With delay and rising construction costs, and a possible loss of the $1M grant, the savings would be much less, if anything at all. Will we continue to search for ways to save money on this project once it is funded? Yes, The Town Selectboard, Fire Chief, and Police Chief will continue to search for ways to save money which will reduce the amount borrowed and lower any tax impact. As an example, we budgeted $90,000 for furniture, but we have found two sources of quality, lightly used, furniture for significantly cheaper than originally thought through government programs. If we vote instead for a lower budget, do we lose the $1M federal grant? Possibly. That grant will be reallocated by the United States Department of Agriculture if it is not used within a reasonable time. Is the fact that we’re building to the Stretch Energy Code instead of the regular building code adding a lot of cost? No. In fact, by building a more energy efficient building, the Town will have significant long-term savings in operational costs. (Note that in 2020, the Town adopted the Stretch Energy Code and established itself as Green Community, which has garnered the Town grant money to improve energy efficiency in existing Town buildings. As compared to the “base” energy code, the Stretch Energy Code emphasizes energy performance as opposed to prescriptive requirements for energy efficiency, which allows for greater flexibility in achieving cost-effective construction.) Is it unusual for a town to borrow more than its annual operating budget to fund large capital projects? No. This is a standard practice for funding major infrastructure investments like schools, water systems, and public safety buildings. This is also standard practice for most homeowners who take out a mortgage exceeding their annual income or budget. Can we save tax money by having private donors pay for costs of the building? Yes; anyone is welcome to make a donation to the Town, earmarked for this building project. SIZE: Does Princeton’s size and forecasted growth really warrant a building this size? Yes. The footprint of the building is pared down to essentials with some limited room for growth in the “attic” space. The size of the proposed building is about half the size of the public safety buildings in comparable towns like Ashburnham and Paxton. Princeton’s population doubled from 1970 to 2020. Princeton is currently the only town in the school district with an increase in student population. The state-mandated provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units and Princeton’s recent zoning adoptions that allow for more housing options will likely result in a growing population. Furthermore, Princeton shares in responsibility for the search, rescue, and emergency transport of the more than 500,000 people that visit nearby outdoor recreational areas. Why is this proposal larger than the 2023 design? Changes since the 2023 design include a reduction in the building footprint, while obtaining a 547 square foot increase in square footage thanks to a redesign of the roof trusses, which allows for more usable space. This essentially gives us useable “attic” space and allows for relatively inexpensive expansion when needed. Why do we need such a large building when it’s occupied by only a handful of people each day? Public safety buildings must have certain essential features for function and to meet regulatory requirements. Fire apparatus (trucks, etc.), safety equipment, and building mechanics all take up a lot of space. The interior spaces of the building have been pared down to essentials after years of adjustment and compromise in response to suggestions and concerns brought to the Public Safety Building Committee. Can we reduce the size of the proposal and save costs? No. Reducing the size of the building would remove necessary space and reduce functionality and flexibility. Even if size reduction were an option, it would require a delay for redesign while construction costs continue to increase, as well as a possible loss of the existing $1M federal grant. Cost per square foot is an average based on the entire building. Certain areas of the building—such as those housing emergency communications equipment, data systems, holding cells, hazardous material management, mechanical equipment, etc.—cost more per square foot than other areas. There’s a point of diminishing returns on cost savings from “cutting square footage.” ALTERNATIVES: Can we just repair and renovate the existing building? No. The existing building has fundamental deficiencies that renovation would not address, including structural and space limitations that cannot be adapted to support current code requirements. Renovation would fail to deliver a code-compliant, future-ready building. Could we just enlarge Fire Station 2 in East Princeton instead of building a new building? A fire station near the town center is critical to ensuring adequate response times to the center and western regions of town. As well, homeowners outside of a five-mile radius from a fire station risk significant increases in insurance costs. There is not enough land at Station 2 to provide any functional expansion. Plus, we would still need to construct a police station. Could we site the fire and police in separate buildings for a lower cost? No. The current building allows for shared spaces between the fire and police, which results in cost savings. Separate buildings would mean investment in duplication of many features, and would require two new designs at significant costs, plus the costs of delay. We may also lose the existing $1M federal grant. Why don’t we regionalize services instead of investing in a new building? We would still need a second fire station to maintain adequate equipment and personnel in Princeton for adequate response times. Regionalization beyond our current mutual aid agreements would require unionization (as all of the towns we would regionalize with are already unionized). This would require Princeton to increase staffing per shift, and would require we share regionalized management costs and building costs. We would lose autonomy over public safety budgets and costs and over the decisions that affect the safety of Princeton residents and property. There is no certainty other Towns would want to regionalize with us. Has the Town considered alternate construction methods that might save costs? Yes; the Town’s Public Safety Building Committee has investigated all appropriate options, including insulated concrete forms, and prefabricated and modular construction; all were found to be more expensive. The proposed wood frame stick-built system with prefabricated trusses is the most economical option. Has the Town considered a phased approach to construction? Yes; it was determined that there would be significant additional cost to phasing the project and the risk that later phases would never get funded and done. Has the Town looked at other sites for the building? Yes. Other sites were explored and found to have issues or were too far from the Town center such that sections of Town would be left without adequate emergency response times. Another site would likely require purchase or eminent domain costs. Any further exploration of a new site at this stage would incur the significant costs of a new design, while the cost of construction continues to rise. FEATURES: Why are we being asked to pay for a fitness area in the building? The design includes about 1,000 square feet of space within the roof trusses, a portion of which will be used for a fitness area. Public Safety personnel must meet fitness requirements. The Fire Department already has the fitness equipment, which was fully funded by donation or grant. Including a space in a new Public Safety Building—and in what is essentially otherwise unused attic space—allows public safety personnel to fitness train to requirements. And when they are there fitness training while off-duty, if an emergency call comes in, they are required to respond to it. In such a case, they may quickly respond as opposed to facing delays associated with being at a gym in another community. As well, Princeton struggles with recruitment and retention; a fitness area available for public safety personnel is a compelling incentive. Why is there empty room for future expansion in the design? Portions of the current public safety building have been used for more than 130 years. We expect this proposed building to be used well into the future. It saves significant money in the long-term to build now with some space for future expansion, rather than having to expand the building size or construct another new building in a few future years. WHAT IF: What happens if we fail to pass the funding of a new Public Safety Building? We risk increased taxes related to the following: potential lawsuits for injury, rights violations, or noncompliance associated with the current building; costs associated with short-term repairs and maintenance to the current building and to equipment exposed to the elements; and loss of grant opportunities due to noncompliant facilities. Many risk their annual homeowner’s insurance rates increasing, especially if Fire Station 1/Headquarters is vacant. The need for a new building is not going away. We face starting this process yet again, with ever-increasing construction costs. We risk low morale, loss of staff, and a lack of volunteers to serve on yet another public safety building committee. What happens if we vote to fund a new Public Safety Building but at a lower amount than that requested by the Public Safety Building Committee? We may lose the existing $1M federal grant. We would need to pay architects and engineers to once again redesign a building—a process that will likely result in a delay of at least a year while construction costs increase. If we are unable to design a building with essential features and standards to this lower budget or fail to get bids that meet that budget, we’d have to hold another special town meeting to ask voters to approve more funding, and if that fails, then we lose all progress toward constructing this much-needed building, and will need to start yet again.
BALLOT VOTE AND DEBT EXCLUSION
Since the Public Safety Building funding request passed at the Special Town Meeting, do I still need to vote for it on the ballot? Yes. A debt exclusion must pass two votes: (1) Town Meeting (by 2/3 majority vote)--which has been accomplished as of April 6, 2026; and (2) a simple majority at the ballot--which is May 11, 2026 (with early and absentee voting options).
What will the Public Safety Building ballot question look like? The ballot question will ask voters if they will allow debt exclusion funding to construct the public safety building. The wording of the specific ballot question has not yet been released, but it will be similar to the following: "Shall the Town of Princeton be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so called, the amount required to pay for the bond issued in order to pay the costs for the design, engineering, construction, equipping, and furnishing a new Public Safety Building to be located at HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/maps/search/18+Boylston+Ave,+Princeton,+MA+01541?entry=gmail&source=g"18 Boylston Ave, Princeton, MA 01541, including any and all incidental and related costs?"
What is Proposition 2 1/2? In 1980, Massachusetts voters passed a law that caps the amount by which the maximum amount of money raised by property taxes can increase each year to 2.5 percent per year since the law was enacted. This is commonly known as "Proposition 2 ½." A Town can increase the property taxes beyond this 2.5 percent if they get a majority of voters to agree to an "override." The new public safety building does NOT require a Prop 2 1/2 override, it requires a Debt Exclusion Vote (see below).
What is a "debt exclusion"? A debt exclusion allows a town to raise tax revenue to pay for debt (principal and interest) borrowed for a specific purpose. A debt exclusion is a means of funding a particular project--in this case a new public safety building--with a temporary increase in the levy limit (i.e., the maximum amount of property tax the Town can raise in a fiscal year, which is capped at 2.5% increase from the prior year's maximum allowable tax). The debt is "excluded" (i.e., exempt) from the levy limitations.
How is a debt exclusion different from a Proposition 2 1/2 Override? While both will increase your property taxes, a debt exclusion is a TEMPORARY increase in property taxes (until the loan is paid). In this case, the debt exclusion would finance the construction of the public safety building and will increase your property taxes for the borrowing term (expected to be 30 years) to cover the cost of the project. When the financing bond is paid off, your tax increase for the project goes away. In comparison, a Proposition 2 1/2 override is a permanent increase to the amount the Town can raise through property taxes.
So if the ballot question references Proposition 2 1/2, are we being asked to approve a Proposition 2 1/2 Override? No. Although a debt exclusion and a Proposition 2 1/2 Override are both ways to exceed the Proposition 2 1/2 limit on property taxes, as explained in more detail above, a debt exclusion is temporary and a Proposition 2 1/2 Override is permanent. The ballot question to fund the public safety building in Princeton is only asking for a temporary debt exclusion.
Is there a Proposition 2/12 Override vote on the ballot or at the Annual Town Meeting this year? No.
What does voting "yes" on the debt exclusion question at the ballot mean? A "yes" vote allows the Town to use exempt or excluded debt -- in other words to temporarily increase your property taxes to fund the public safety building construction up to the amount approved at the April 6, 2026 Special Town Meeting. That means a property tax increase of $1.08 for every $1,000 of assessed property value. For the average-valued home in Princeton, that is a tax increase of about $645/yr or $54/month for the duration of the 30-year borrowing period. A "yes" vote will mean that the Town will be able to fund the public safety building construction, and can begin construction as early as July 2026.
What does voting "no" on the debt exclusion question at the ballot mean? A "no" vote would prohibit the Town from excluding or exempting the debt to fund the public safety building construction from the levy. In effect, it would mean that the Town will be unable to fund the Public Safety Building construction and the project will halt.
Yes. The project requires two approvals: Town Meeting vote (2/3 majority) — Approved April 6, 2026 Ballot vote (simple majority) — May 11, 2026 (with early/absentee options)
Both steps are required for the project to move forward.
What will the ballot question ask?
Voters will be asked whether to approve a debt exclusion to fund construction of the new Public Safety Building.
The final wording isn’t released yet, but it will be similar to:
Shall the Town be allowed to exempt the cost of borrowing for the new Public Safety Building from Proposition 2½ limits?
What is Proposition 2½?
A Massachusetts law (1980) that limits how much property taxes can increase each year—generally no more than 2.5%.
Towns can exceed this limit only with voter approval.
What is a debt exclusion?
A debt exclusion allows the Town to temporarily raise taxes to pay for a specific project (like this building). Applies only to the project’s debt (principal + interest) Lasts only for the life of the loan Ends when the debt is fully paid
Debt exclusion vs. Proposition 2½ override Debt exclusion: Temporary tax increase (ends when debt is paid) Override: Permanent increase to the tax base
This ballot question is only for a temporary debt exclusion, not a permanent override.
Is there a Proposition 2½ override on the ballot?
No.
What does a “YES” vote mean? Allows the Town to fund and build the Public Safety Building Results in a temporary tax increase About $1.08 per $1,000 of property value Approx. $645/year ($54/month) for an average home Project could begin as early as July 2026
What does a “NO” vote mean? The Town cannot use a debt exclusion The project cannot be funded as proposed Construction would not move forward