Derry Fire Station Position Paper

A Reasonable Fire Station

The Town of Derry wants to build a new fire station to replace the downtown station, which all agree is old and out of date. It certainly does not seem to make sense to put much money into the downtown station because of its age and its pending replacement as a fire station. A new substation is needed to improve the response time to the underserved south and southwest parts of town. Such a station has been proposed to be located in the Shute's Corner area and while this is a good location from the standpoint of access to the four points of the compass it is not clear if a study has been done to see if it is the best location using other criteria which need to be employed in locating a fire station. Land for such a station was offered to the Town in this area for free but that the offer was declined. Another parcel is being considered or has been selected which will cost the Town in the vicinity of $200,000.  There may have been good justification for declining the free land but the question should be asked and answered. The construction of a new station should be the product of meaningful input from the community it is to serve, and should not be under the exclusive oversight of the Derry Fire Department. The last time we allowed the "Town" to oversee the construction of a town building, we got a Taj Mahal -- a nice facility but far too expensive. A suggestion has been made to all members of the Town Council that there be a Building Committee appointed. Only one Councilor indicated he thought this was a good idea. There was no response from the other six. According to Derry Fire Chief George Klauber, he is looking at a station which would have apparatus housing constructed at $95 per square foot and living quarters constructed at $165 per square foot. He wants perhaps three bays for approximately $1,900,000. Fire stations should not be architectural monuments to how important someone thinks they are. As the community's development and population shift over the years, fire stations need to be relocated for best service to that community. Grand monument buildings cost the community too much for what they do. Expensive monuments also discourage moving when a move would be wise. The newest station in town, East Derry's Station 2, is a model which should be copied. East Derry's station with living quarters was conceived, literally, on the back of a dinner napkin by East Derry personnel and planned with local expertise. Expensive consultants were not necessary.  The steel building was purchased directly from the factory in Pennsylvania, and East Derry community volunteers both supervised and participated in the project from beginning to end -- a project that was completed for approximately $195,000. East Derry's new station is also three bays and was designed to last at least fifty years. East Derry's headquarters station, also built by volunteers in 1967, is still going strong and expected to last well over fifty years. Derry does not need a fancy brick on block fire department substation at the prices Chief Klauber proposes. If the taxpayers of the Town of Derry want to spend this kind of money for a substation, then they should remain silent and not complain when their tax bill comes in. If not, contact Fire Chief Klauber and the Town Councilors and demand that there be meaningful community input and citizen oversight into the planning and construction of this new station. The taxpayers of the Derry Fire District are challenged to see how much community involvement can be mustered for this project. How did this issue stack up against the ADT's 11 Questions? 1. What "need" is this action supposed to address? Is this truly the role of government? Answer -- The "Need" is to improve fire protection for the southerly end of town by construction of a new fire station.  This is clearly an issue that government needs to address, but with the input of the governed. 2. Is the proposed action legal and within the proper jurisdiction? Does it rely on a narrow interpretation of the "letter of the law" while running counter to the "spirit of the law"? Answer -- This action is clearly legal and within the jurisdiction of the town. 3. What other options, including private sector, exist to address this issue? Have they been properly and effectively evaluated? Answer -- At this time, there is not the will to privatize fire departments, at least not in this part of the country. 4. Which possible solution has the lowest short term costs to the taxpayer, and which has the lowest long term costs? Answer --There is really not a useful alternative to constructing a new fire station since the south end of town is so underserved, unless a cooperative station were to be considered to be built near the Windham line and staffed by members of both departments. This alternative has not been explored.  Windham is planning a "north" station in the general area of the Windham Animal Hospital. 5. Does this action benefit only a few? Should the majority of taxpayers fund this benefit for the few? Answer -- This action would benefit everyone in town and especially those in the immediate area served. 6. What are the short and long term consequences of implementing this action? Have recurring operating costs been factored into the true cost to the taxpayers? Will this action force funding consequent actions? Answer -- Unless additional staffing and apparatus is needed for the new station, which it probably is not, it should not unreasonably increase operating costs. 7. What are the likely collateral consequences of this action? Increased traffic, reduced safety, damage to existing neighborhood? Will this action increase the size of bureaucracy, and/or add regulatory interference? Will it result in the loss of personal freedoms? Answer -- A modern station, constructed and placed with the neighborhood in mind, should not damage the neighborhood.  It should improve response time to southern areas.  It should not increase the size or impact of the bureaucracy.  There should be no impact on individual freedoms except to the extent that input from the citizens is neither sought nor considered. 8. Who truly benefits? Are there hidden agendas that are being fulfilled by this issue? Is there favoritism or other remuneration involved? Answer -- The people in the new area served should benefit by decreased response time.  No hidden agendas are identified. 9. Are undefined generalities, vague assumptions and unverifiable conjecture being used to advance the idea? Or is the idea being supported by proven facts? Answer -- It is not clear that there has been a detailed study on the potential location site of the new station.  As indicated, it appears to be a good choice strictly from the standpoint of access to all four points of the compass.  However, there are other criteria which need to be considered. 10. What restraints are in place to verify that the intended action will be implemented as planned? (without changes in scope once authorized) Answer -- We have not identified any restraints in place to oversee the selection of the site, the general contractor, the design, the cost, or other details of the proposed station, and this is the reason for this position paper. 11. How can the action be undone if it is proven to have failed to meet its stated goals? How much will it cost to undo the action? Answer -- There is no effective way to undo the construction of a fire station.

© Copyright 2004, Alliance of Derry Taxpayers. All rights reserved.