While you weren't looking...
Here is the gist from the Saturday piece (The Citizen requires a free registration for access to some of its stories):
Next week, Fire Department officials will be submitting a proposal to the Board of Selectmen for a new fire engine to replace Engine 1...The problem arose when the truck was sent to a shop for routine maintenance repairs that were anticipated to cost the department roughly $1,600. Upon closer examination the engine was found to have "other vehicle issues." The required repairs that would be needed for inspection purposes would have cost upwards of $16,000...The need of a quick replacement is not because Gilford is lacking in fire prevention coverage, but because federal EPA standards change with regard to engine emissions in 2007. This means that if the town was to purchase a post-2007 vehicle, the engine model would be completely new.
"It's not that we are trying to circumvent federal EPA standards. We are simply trying to avoid a first-year-model engine in order to prevent new model glitches, which could end up costing the town even more money," explains Fire Engineer Bill Akerley.
The way things are supposed to work in our town, a budget is prepared and then voted upon by the people at town meeting. What we see here are the early seeds of the procedure that will be used to circumvent the normal process of debate and approval (or not) by the voters. They will probably seek to lease this piece of equipment using funds “found” in this year’s approved budget. Next year, the voters will have to approve the payments. “Otherwise,” the town leaders will tell us, “that money we ‘invested’ last year will be lost.”
