I have worked on the planning and execution of large municipal projects like the proposed $6 million central emergency services station, and I know what the proper process is. It has not been followed. There should be definition of the problem; examination of options; an independent analysis of the costs and benefits of those options; and recommendations.
Voters should ask town leadership the following questions:
1. Why was the comprehensive 2008 study not referred to? That study did not recommend a fourth, central station. It did recommend that the town look into a “first-due” service agreement with Brunswick to offer good response times to the northern parts of town. Was that done? If not, why not?
2. Why was the 2008 study not updated with current analysis and recommendations?
3. Why has the town not spent the $25,000 needed to calculate the life-cycle cost of operating, maintaining and repairing the new building? The cost could be $4.5 million over the life of the bond issue.
4. The Orr’s and Bailey Islands Fire Department withdrew its alternative proposal in the face of stiff opposition from the Fire and Rescue Planning Committee. Doesn’t this alternative deserve serious review by an outside consultant?
5. Why did the Select Board vote against paying a consultant to research questions being raised by townspeople? They said there was enough knowledge among the fire departments to do this, but I don’t think this is a substitute for third-party expertise.
Because due diligence is still needed, I will be voting no on the new station. The town needs to demonstrate fiduciary responsibility. Voters should request a comprehensive, professional, independent study so we can vote intelligently. I support spending money for fire and rescue, but only on a well-thought-out plan.
Ellen Glew, Mountain Road
