News & Features
September 2005

SEPTEMBER 12 DEBT EXCLUSION
Vote NO: Moderate need, heavy costs
Prepared by William J. Gillmeister for Citizens for Sound Financial Management

CLICK HERE FOR OPPOSING VIEWPOINT

The Brookfield Fire Department has served the Town of Brookfield with dedication and honor for many years, and we express our sincere appreciation to the current and past members for their service. Our heartfelt hope is that those who serve the Fire Department will view the information and opinion expressed in this article not as a reflection on their service and dedication, but as the opinion of concerned citizens who seek what is best for the Town of Brookfield.

At Town Meeting last May and June, the Town voted to raise and appropriate about $300,000 for a new fire engine. The appropriation was conditioned on a debt exclusion vote, which will take place on Sept. 12. We would like an opportunity to present information in support of a “no” vote.

The table above shows the current pumper engine assets of the Fire Department. (You can view these engines and their specifications at www.brookfieldfd.com. Look under “Apparatus.”) All three engines are similar in the volume they can pump, the number of miles and, with the exception of Engine 3, the number of hours. With regard to the hours on Engine 3, the Town approved funds to refurbish the pump in Engine 3 at the last town meeting. Also, according to the Department’s web site, Engine 1 also has a 30-gallon foam capacity. Also of note is the number of firefighters each can carry. Engine 1 can carry up to four firefighters, while Engines 2 and 3 can only carry two.

The need for a new engine has been variously stated as Engine 2 is old and needs replacement and that Engine 2 can only carry two firefighters. A new engine will be able to carry four to six firefighters and will have a foam unit to put out car fires. Finally, a new engine will reduce homeowner insurance rates. These are admirable reasons, but these must be offset with some indication of the need relative to other needs of the Town and the costs.
Consider the number of firefighters these trucks can carry. Brookfield has a volunteer firefighting force. When an alarm for the Fire Department sounds, firefighters mainly muster from their homes or places of work in their own vehicles. A key to assisting victims and limiting property damage is the response time, that is, the amount of time it takes for firefighters and equipment to arrive at the scene. It would be an unreasonable waste of time for an engine to wait at the firehouse until it is filled to its capacity with firefighters. The most effective strategy, it would seem, is to get the equipment on the road as quickly as possible even though a full compliment of firefighters has not arrived at the firehouse. The remaining firefighters responding to the call could go directly to the scene. The need for an engine to carry more personnel seems minimal.

Just thinking of a 1971 engine makes one strongly consider that it is pasture time (maybe antique time) for old Engine 2. However, it actually has fewer miles than Engine 1, and while the hours of service are greater, the pump remains in good condition. Not only that, but the department still has Engine 3. Furthermore, mutual aid exists for area communities to pool their resources. In almost all of the recent structural fires in Brookfield, at least two engines from surrounding communities responded. So, while replacement seems not far off, the current need is not so strong that other capital projects need to be put off in order to make this replacement.

Decreased property owner’s insurance is enticing. The argument goes like this. Insurance companies set property insurance rates according to any number of factors and one is the fire protection offered by the town in which the property is located. A new engine would increase the fire protection rating and, therefore, lower property insurance rates.

For informational purposes, in a Special Report in the Boston Globe on Jan. 31, 2005 (www.boston.com/news/specials/fires), Globe correspondent Bill Deman provided the ISO ratings for all communities in Massachusetts. (ISO is a company that assesses risks, in this case, fire risks for insurance companies.) The ratings range from 1, excellent fire protection, to 10, no protection. Brookfield’s rating in November 2004 was a split rating of 6/9 with the second number indicating the fire protection for properties more than 1,000 feet from a fire hydrant. Most of the communities around Brookfield have a similar rating. Sturbridge’s rating is 7/9. To what degree a new engine will actually lower property insurance rates for Brookfield is questionable. In any case, the reduction in those rates will barely offset the increase in the tax rate associated with a debt exclusion.

Finally, Brookfield has many capital projects on its list right now. The highway barn has yet to wield its tax rate impacts. The Town Hall roof is yet to be priced and will likely require more borrowing as well. Furthermore, Brookfield is deep in the middle of paying down the costs of the elementary school and the regional high school. Our interest costs on all of the borrowing this town is doing could purchase four or five new engines. The highway barn on a 40-year note at 3% would run over $540,000 in interest alone. And all of this takes place at a time when oil prices are sky rocketing. Individuals on fixed incomes are going to have a very tough time with what seems to be an ever-increasing tax bill. (The average single family tax bill has increased by 60% over the past five years!)

We agree that the time is nearing for a replacement of Engine 2. But it makes much more fiscal sense to put away funds in stabilization and wait until such time as we don’t have to borrow funds to make the purchase. Because the immediate need for an engine is only moderate in the face of the highway barn, the town hall roof, and the current debt the town is straddled with, we urge you to vote no on Sept. 12, 2005.