Report Inappropriate Comments

This proposal does not help reduce the work load on existing firefighters, but it does raise our property tax bills a lot.

Unfortunately, the Fire Benefit charge is NOT simply based on the "square feet" of building. They are based on the "square root of the square feet" of building. This means that larger buildings pay an exponentially lower fire benefit charge per square foot than larger buildings.

This is most egregious for apartment buildings. As small apartment building, owned by a local investor, has five apartments of about 800 square feet each. She will pay $195/year per apartment, or about $16/month, and this will put upward pressure on rent. By contrast, a huge apartment complex in town owned by a national property investment corporation has 200 apartments, 40-times as big. Because of the "square root of the square feet" formula, they will pay only about $35/year per apartment, or about $3/month.

The Fire Benefit Charge formula is most unfair to the local landlords who mostly work directly with their tenants to try to provide affordable housing. The increase in property tax bills is hardly anything at all to the big corporate property owners. It should be the other way arounds: fires in large apartment buildings are much harder for firefighters to manage: hundreds of people to evacuate, specialized equipment needed, and much more danger.

And all this to generate $10.5 million in new "fees" (which look, act, and quack like a tax) which provides not a single additional firefighter, not a single addition fire engine, and not a single new fire station. That is the fact for the first seven years of the published RFA Strategic Plan. See the details at: https://sites.google.com/view/saveourfd/improved-service?

If we just keep the two fire departments as they are, and raise taxes by the same $10.5 million, we could afford to hire two dozen new firefighters and paramedics, add a new fire engine or two every year (they last about 15 years), and be able to build a reserve fund for new equipment. That would provide meaningful improvement in service. This poorly-designed RFA proposal does none of those things.

Big new fees. No new service. Vote NO!