Public Safety Building Committee FAQs

The current floor plan and spatial configuration do not meet operational needs for Police, Fire, and EMS, resulting in risks to both personnel and the public, code deficiencies, and inefficiencies.

The existing public safety building has reached the end of its useful life cycle. Structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are obsolete and cannot be retrofitted to comply with modern International Building Code, Massachusetts State Building Code, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements.

Two comprehensive facility assessments, performed at the request of the Town in 2017 and 2018, independently concluded that repair or renovation would not address the currently building’s fundamental deficiencies, including:

• Structural limitations: Load-bearing walls and foundation systems cannot be adapted to support current seismic (earthquake) or wind load requirements.
• Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing: Existing HVAC, electrical distribution, and plumbing are undersized, inefficient, and noncompliant with current American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers and NFPA standards.
• Space standards: The building fails to meet Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) spatial guidelines for public safety facilities. DPH controls holding cells and booking areas in police stations.
• Operational safety: Inadequate separation of secure and non-secure zones (police only, fire only, etc), lack of a compliant holding cell, and insufficient decontamination facilities for people, gear and equipment pose risks.

Renovation, if even possible on the existing site, would exceed 75% of replacement cost while still failing to deliver code-compliant, future-ready infrastructure.

ISO (Insurance Services Office) fire protection standards and NFPA 1710 mandate response times of four minutes for first apparatus arrival. A single centralized station cannot achieve compliant coverage across the town’s geographic footprint. Two strategically located fire stations are essential to reduce response distances, and get water on the fire as quickly as possible. When a town cannot offer adequate coverage, its ISO ratings go down. Some insurance companies use ISO ratings to establish premiums: the lower the ISO rating, the higher the premium, and vice versa.

Yes. A complaint to the State by a detainee could trigger an inspection by the DPH. Additionally, facilities are subject to inspection by the Department of Public Safety, the State Fire Marshal, and OSHA where applicable. Inspections have identified deficiencies in ADA accessibility, fire suppression systems, egress, and air handling. These findings underscore the noncompliance of the existing facility and reveal Princeton’s potential vulnerability to lawsuits from employees, detainees, or others.

• Residents: Delayed response times, compromised emergency medical interventions, and increased insurance premiums due to ISO rating deterioration.
• Municipality: Escalating deferred maintenance costs, liability for noncompliance, and inability to meet public safety obligations under state and federal mandates.
• Police Department: Continued operation in facilities with inadequate booking, evidence storage, and officer wellness accommodations.
• Fire/EMS: Inability to decontaminate carcinogen-laden gear (increasing the health risk to first responders), insufficient apparatus bay clearance (continued risk of injury), and insufficient apparatus bays for necessary equipment (for example, brush trucks for off-season brush fires).

Failure to approve the funding at Town Meeting and at a Special Town Election will result in continued occupation of substandard facilities. Consequences include:

• Escalating capital outlays for emergency repairs without addressing underlying deficiencies.
• Exposure to litigation from employees, detainees or others arising from ADA, DPH, OSHA, or code noncompliance.
• Reduced eligibility for state and federal grant programs due to lack of compliant facilities. For example, many grants require an Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Station 2, our existing EOC, would not meet the standards.
• Long-term degradation of operational readiness, recruitment, and retention of personnel.