Your Money, Your Vote. Extinguish the blaze.

YOUR MONEY, YOUR VOTE. EXTINGUISH THE BLAZE

With sincere respect to our fire department and personnel, the proposed replacement of Northborough's fire station couldn't come at a worse time nor the cost any more extravagant. The total price of a new station is still in fluctuation but estimates up to $70M and exceeding are unrealistic. The need for an upgraded modernistic facility is not the argument, but total price and how it is funded is. If a "safe and healthy work environment" as recently stated in the Advocate, is all that is being asked for, then surely this could be achieve with a less expensive option. Significant funds have already been spent on the existing station to correct a sewage problem, resolve an air quality issue and to repoint a small section of external brick wall to prevent water seepage. Residents also deserve an affordable, well-being quality living community as well. Unfortunately, town officials elect to keep on spending with no thought of the financial impacts to households within their jurisdiction resulting in further inequality and socioeconomic deterioration.

Northborough is one of the highest cost-of-living communities in one of the top five most expensive states in the nation. The need to reduce expenses and develop a fairer and more balanced budget and economic direction seems obvious to many except town officials. Both property taxes and assessments are recessive and based on unrealized gains. The fact that not all residents are NOT on the same financial footings is not a factor in decision making. Reducing the tax burden should be a goal but isn't. The fact that many municipal; employees including police, fire as well as town natives and longtime residents are being forced to relocate or live elsewhere should be a red flag that governance and decisions are not favoring affordability or sustainability. The financial consequences of raising the debt and tax levy ceilings have not been adequately explained and represent serious financial risks to residents.

Victim of delays and low priority, the station proposal is now employee a fast track to have residents approve raising both debt exclusion and tax levy ceilings. A payback period of thirty years at an interest rate yet to be finalized and a bypass of Prop 2 1/2 opens the door for a long-term annual property tax increases without limitations, forever. While communities throughout the Commonwealth for the past several years have been delaying, rejecting and reassessing capital projects because of the uncertain economy, high interest rates, fear of inflation or recession, loss of dollar value, and overspending, Northborough jumped from the back burner to flash fire with no safety zone provided for taxpaying residents. In January 2024 Governor Healey cut $1.6M in funding directed to 33 fire stations, including Berlin and Worcester. This included station equipment, cancer prevention and other programs. Recently, she signed a bill to prevent chemical contaminates, including PFABs in fire protective gear. Remember that the proposed Maine Stree location was formerly labeled a "brown zone" by EPA/DEP and although contaminated sediments were removed it is not known if a written compliance certificate was received. Many communities throughout the Commonwealth and Worcester County still employed volunteer fire departments to limit expenses. The emphasis is on exploring less expensive options and doing more with less. Shouldn't this alert the Administrator, Select Board and Finance Committee to seek other alternatives?

Absolutely no sensitivity has been displayed toward the financial limitations of families and individuals. Nor has it been mentioned that should a household be incapable of paying the high taxes, they face possible foreclosure. It is a high price to pay for a "safe and healthy work environment." Do you sacrifice the financial security and means of your own residents to fulfill a service need that might be achieved by a less costly option? Do you jeopardize the major revenue source to justify overspending of a capital project? What happened to the goal of maintaining an affordable sustainable, small semi-rural community? Since residents represent the customer base for local businesses, what impacts will future erosion of disposal income have on the local economy? A 1% increase in property taxes can account for a significant reduction in a family's monthly living allowance. Do we really need a station building of the size and design to provide us adequate basic fire protection service? New office supplies, equipment and furnishings are major cost additions. Construction cost over runs and time schedule modifications may be expected. Then there is the annual operation and maintenance costs. Another eight full time personnel positions increasing salary and pension dollars to the budget and taxpayers is neither needed or advisable. More than 65% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck which doesn't support debt accumulation or tax increases. Other non-tax funding options deserve exploration. To fan the fire, I propose that tax money should not be used to fund this extreme cost capital facility proposal. Residents need to be given top priority over expenditures especially when it's our pockets you're picking. You do not knowingly place families and individuals at risk just to accommodate an unrealistic cost item regardless of its perceived or real importance. There is a fiduciary responsibility of officials not just to ensure effective management and use of funds but also to protect residents from financial peril. More critical thinking and research needs to be done before any vote or commitment to this project and all foreseeable capital projects is taken.

Gib Chase,6 Kimball Lane

Northborough, MA.