It is not unusual for fire truck to stay in service well past 25 years

To the editor,

On March 13, the hardworking taxpayers of Gilford will go to the polls to vote on the town warrant. Article 1 will ask you to elect people for a verity of positions, mostly uncontested. There are nine candidates for Budget Committee and only three seats are available. I encourage people to choose wisely, your tax rate depends on it!

Also, you will be asked to approve a variety of appropriations to fund town government for the next year. For most warrant articles I make no recommendations, however I most ask you to vote NO on Article 8. Article 8 asks you to authorize the town to take out a $450,000 bond for the purchase of a brand new fire engine. Some points:

1. In the interest of full disclosure to the voter, article 8 should include the language of “the sum of all payments, including interest is $510,000”. Every bank and lending institution is required by law to disclose this information on every any mortgage, auto loan, really any loan. We should hold the town to the same standard. I tried to amend this article at the deliberative session to no avail; the crowd was stacked against me.

2. The warrant reads as if the new fire engine will be replacing a 1987 ranger fire engine (engine 4). This is simply not true! The new engine will be replacing a 2003 KME fire engine (engine 2) as the first due attack pumper. Engine 2 will then be rotated to reserve/back-up/2nd due status (There is some debate on the proper term to describe this engine’s role however the fire chief himself has used all three of these terms to describe engine 4.) replacing engine 4. It is true that engine 4 will ultimately be sold but its replacement will be a 2003 not a 2012. The wording of the Article 8 is such that it leads the unknowing voter to believe that the current front line truck is a 1987 and not a 2003.

3. Engine 4 and Engine 2 are both good trucks. Mr. Pat Labonte and myself (We both have extensive experience buying, selling, repairing and operating severe duty vocational trucks.) spent hours on two different occasions inspecting these trucks trying to find some justification to spend a half million dollars. While we do have some concerns involving the Fire Department's preventative maintenance procedures, or lack thereof, we feel both these trucks are fundamentally sound. Particular attention was paid to engine 4 due to its age; we believe that with a little TLC this truck is good for at least five more years. It only has 79,000 miles and is mechanically sound.

4. It is very premature to put a 9 year old truck in “2nd due” status.

5. It is not unusual for a fire truck to stay in service well past 25 years. The Town of Center Harbor just bought a new custom chassis pumper (for $100k less than the one Gilford FD wants to buy) which replaced three trucks; a 1988, 1978, and a 1974. The 1988 was recently sold to the Town of Bridgewater for $10,500 to become there 1st due pumper, and they are proud to have it.

6. If article 8 passes engine 4 will probably be sold to a town of lessor financial means and it will serve them well. Our trash is their treasure.

7. Gilford’s tax rate increased $.93 per $1000 this year and with home evaluations continuing to drop we are nearly guaranteed a similar increase next year. We are, by a large margin, the highest taxed town on the big lake. Making this purchase during these economically challenging times would be fiscally irresponsible.

8. Why do we need a $450K fire truck? A new double cab commercial chassis pumper with the same capabilities can be purchased for $200k less than the truck that is proposed.

9. The procedure the Fire Department used to award the bid is questionable at best. It allowed dealers free reign to outfit their proposed truck as they wished, as opposed to requesting bids for trucks with a common predetermined specification. The (now former) fire chief and a firefighter took a trip to Ocala, Florida to tour the “E-one” assembly plant. (E-one was ultimately selected) This trip took place before the bid. No one seems willing to say who paid for this trip. It isn’t unusual for a dealer to treat a customer to a trip to the plant after being awarded the bid to observe the customer’s truck in the assembly process. Having done extensive business with e-one (in Ocala) over several years I can vouch that this is a regular practice of e-one dealers, but it highly unusual and very suspect for this trip to accrue pre-bid.

10. The Board of Selectman unanimously does NOT recommend purchasing a new fire engine. According to the last vote on the matter the Budget Committee does NOT recommend this purchase by a margin 8-4, this vote will not show on the ballot (but can be verified by meeting minutes of Feb.7th) because of technical reasons involving the timing of this vote. The first vote tally of NOT recommended by a tie vote of 6-6 will appear on the ballot. Both of these votes included the highly improper vote of a part time employee of the fire department, whose role on the Budget Committee is to serve as the School Board’s representative. The School Board doesn’t take official positions on fire truck issues.

With all these points made I feel obligated to mention that although I strongly disagree with the need for a new fire engine at this time, I have the upmost respect the Gilford firefighters, and the fire engineers. Mr. Akerley is truly a man of class.

In conclusion I urge the voters of Gilford to vote NO on Article 8.

Kevin Leandro

Gilford