To the Editor:
Renovating Easton’s EMS could cost over $4 million. Approximately $1 million is “other people’s money,” but $3 million is yours.
This so-called “cost-effective” plan includes six private offices, four bedrooms, five bathrooms, a large classroom, two extra conference rooms, a reception area, and a laundry room. (The floor plans for the proposed EMS building, including labeled spaces, can be accessed here — Eds.)
The consultant we hired to assess our first responder system recommended building a new EMS facility next to or integrated with the fire department. This would effectively encourage both services to share resources and lower taxpayer costs.
This practical recommendation was dismissed in favor of renovating a 99-year-old building. Demolishing old structures is almost always cheaper than renovating them.
Considering Easton has rejected common sense, do we really need an EMS building with six private offices and five bathrooms? I don’t think so, and I strongly urge you to vote against this proposal on Tuesday. An EMS building should be a basic garage with minimal amenities, like the firehouse.
Easton has a history of amending extravagant building proposals. The original Samuel Staples Elementary School design included an auditorium and a cafeteria. Andy Kachele (Board of Finance) and others suggested a “cafetorium compromise” that dramatically reduced costs. Where is the compromise in this EMS plan?
The town has committed to purchasing upgraded police radios for around $3 million. This is a much-needed upgrade, and the price is fixed; it doesn’t include “amenity items.”
EMS proponents argue that the project won’t raise future taxes because much of the town’s portion will come from our Unallocated Fund Balance (the extra tax money the town collects each year and keeps in reserve for emergencies).
The Unallocated Fund Balance is still your tax money. Its size is crucial in determining Easton’s credit rating. If we spend down our rainy-day fund, I believe taxes must increase to maintain our credit rating.
Proponents have labeled opponents of this six private office, four-bedroom, five bathroom, three conference room, project with its reception area, art, copper sub-roof and other amenities as “anti-EMS.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. We are “pro-EMS,” “pro-taxpayer,” and “pro-commonsense.”
Vote no on Tuesday. It’s time to go back to the drawing board.
Dana Benson
Easton
