Re: Fire Station

["Jon Kimberling" <jon@n-k-ins.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <WMSteed@aol.com>
To: <jonk@moscow.com>; <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>; <mjmiller@moscow.com>;
<vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Fire Station


> OK.  I just talked to the Idaho State Rating Bureau.  After reading them
item
> 1 on the "Fire Station Fact Sheet" they said not building the proposed
> station "at this time" would not impact Moscow's protection rating.  It
would
> make a difference when and if Moscow expands out from its proposed
location.
> More specifically, engine companies need to be 1.5 miles from the property
> they are protecting and ladder companies 2.5 miles.  This means that
engine
> company stations can be as much as five (5) miles apart.  The proposed
site
> is 1.2 miles from the downtown station.  Wouldn't it seem that in case of
> Moscow's expansion, in 5, 10, 15, 20 years, perhaps a better location from
a
> rating aspect would be further North?

In speaking with Fire Chief Don Strong, they estimate this location will
work for at least 50 years. Gary Riedner told me that the studies they have
indicate this to be the best location. From my viewpoint, I think it would
be infinitely more challenging to convince Moscow taxpayers of the idea of
building a fire station in the county. However, it was considered as an
option.
>
> Granted there are other factors that go into fire ratings but all we are
> talking about here is the proposed fire station.  It's now occurred to me
> that we could be faced with future bond issues for trucks to fill the
spaces
> created by the proposed station.

Chief Strong advises we have all the equipment we need. There are trucks in
the other stations that will be moved to Station 3. He is hopeful the heavy
rescue truck will be purchased through grants and matching funds. The
ambulance, like all the others, will be purchased by volunteers.
>
> Several of us have found that the argument that insurance rates will
increase
> if Moscow's protection ratings change is not necessarily the case.

The fact sheet states we want to maintain our favorable rating, no argument
about a huge impact on insurance rates. Making a generic statement that they
will not necessarily increase is leading people to believe that there is no
impact. This is not true.


>
> Yes, in case of a fire or a heart attack we would all like a station next
> door; but would we wish to pay for it?  That seems to be the real question
> that should be before the voters. (and several have questioned who should
be
> included as a voter, and subsequent bond payer, on this issue.)
>
> This station appears to be a want rather than a factual need.

The City has been planning for this for 5 years. It's interesting how one
person criticized the City for not planning but another is of the belief we
don't need it. I have numerous reasons why I personally feel the time is
right, including the favorable interest rates presently available, but I'm
also compelled to vote yes as a way of acknowledging and thanking the
incredible volunteers.

If I've missed any questions, let me know.

Jon


>
> Walter Steed
>
>