Why Does Amherst Need To Replace A Fire Engine?

You Ask … Patch Answers is a weekly column for locals looking for solutions to community problems, issues and those "only around here" situations that you want solved.

A Patch blog post by a selectman candidate in Amherst created quite the debate over the need for a replacement fire engine.

Many have emailed Amherst Patch asking for a closer look at the warrant article asking taxpayers for $260,000 for a replacement to the fire department’s Engine 2. Amherst Fire Chief Mark Boynton shed some light on the issue.

Boynton said his fleet has four engines with 1-1,500 gallon water tanks on board to fight fires. Two of these vehicles are used primarily for motor vehicle accidents and cutting people out of cars, while the other two are equipped to handle fires on the front line. Therefore, each of the two fire stations has two engines, one for rescue and one for firefighting.

The engines designated for accidents are smaller and have their storage space dedicated to medical supplies and extrication tools like the Jaws of Life. Engine 2 is one of these vehicles, but Boynton said it is rusted beyond repair.

None of the Amherst Fire engines were designed to last beyond 20 years, the steel frames and body have rusted from the inside out. Storage compartments have significant rust, with a steel plate welded on one of them to keep tools and equipment from falling out. There is also significant rust around and underneath the frame of the vehicle. The damage is not from a lack of care, said Boynton, but a product of old age.

Engine 2 is well past its scheduled replacement date, and Boynton worries the steel frame that holds the water tank will fail due extensive rust the engine will need to be taken out of service and will be too costly to repair.Voters turned down this replacement last year with a 1,154-1,050 vote.

Losing a fire engine would mean spreading their equipment across the remaining vehicles, and that bring the potential of not having the necessary equipment during an emergency. It would also mean one less engine available during a potentially catastrophic emergency.

Boynton cited the recent struggles in Gilford as an example of what happens when a town fails to replace a fire engine on time. Voters rejected a proposal to replace their engine, and are now dealing with the consequences now that the vehicle has failed. They are now spending money to refurbish the old one instead of buying a new one, which Boynton said is “throwing away money to repair and refurbish a 25 year old truck that lacks the safety features of modern apparatus.”

The Amherst Ways & Means committee provided their reasons for supporting a fire engine replacement in their analysis of this year’s warrant articles.

Amherst enjoys a significant cost benefit because of the volunteer nature of our Fire Department.  Since part-time firefighters are only paid when on call, taxpayers only pay a fraction of what they would if we had a full time department. However, our fire trucks and rescue gear must be available full-time and always in workable condition.

The size and deployment of our fleet of fire fighting vehicles is not arbitrary.  The requirements are specified in a document titled “Fire Suppression Rating Schedule” (http://www.iso.com/Products/Public-Protection-Classification-Service/Fire-Suppression-Rating-Schedule-FSRS-manual-for-PPC-grading.html ).

Among other things, the schedule states that a structure has to be within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant or within five miles of a fire station (this is why Amherst has two fire stations and four engines).  It also sets requirements for the amount of water that must be pumped at a site, and that amount is directly related to the number of pumps (fire engines) that we can deploy.  Less pumps mean less water.

The ISO (Insurance Services Office  www.iso.com ) rates the town’s ability to fight fires as prescribed in its manual.  Insurance companies then use this rating to set premiums for residential and commercial fire insurance coverage. Simply put, a lower rating costs us all more for insurance.

The out-of-pocket cost to taxpayers for Article 31 will be $260,000 (with the remaining $150,000 coming from the capital reserve fund). This equates to $4.60 per month for the average house in Amherst.  W&M recommends that the taxpayers save some money and buy the new truck instead of paying more for their insurance.

The manufacturer’s designed life for our fire trucks is 20 years.  Because of the way we use them and the way that our volunteers take care of them, we have historically extended that life.  Replacement, however, is inevitable.  Sooner or later, the old equipment costs more to keep in service, loses all residual value, and suffers from the lack of technological upgrades (anti-skid brakes, traction control, etc).  We should be providing quality equipment to the volunteers who protect us.

Since the total cost of our fleet is almost $3 million, the replacement process must be managed in a thoughtful manner. With a fleet of six capital vehicles with an average maximum age of 24 years, we should be purchasing a new vehicle every four years. Not purchasing a new vehicle for the past six years has skewed the desired age line of our fleet. W&M submitted a schedule to the BoS to correct that problem. (see http://amherstnh.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/BoS-Presentation-Display.pdf  slides 35-41). 

(See Figure 1 for an excerpt from that presentation showing how we can get back on schedule.)

This strategic fleet management schedule requires a contribution of $165,500 per year to the Fire Apparatus Capital Reserve Fund.  That works out to just $35 per year on the average $325,000 house.  

For less than $3.00 per month, Amherst can deploy a first rate fleet of fire fighting vehicles and avoid an increase in our fire insurance premiums.  W&M supports the purchase of the fire truck listed in this warrant as part of implementing this sensible fleet management strategy.

Got a question of your own? Email me at Robert.Michaelson@patch.com.