Voters Shoot Down Plan for New Brewster Firehouse

By Holly Crocco

Brewster residents last week voted down a proposal by the Brewster Fire Department and Brewster/Southeast Joint Fire District to erect a new firehouse.

The vote failed 377 to 477.

“We want to thank everyone who came out to support us,” the department stated on its social media page. “The board of fire commissioner are going to go back to the drawing board and will try and come up with a plan that meets the needs of public safety that would be agreeable to the residents. The fact remains that the current building needs to be replaced.”

Residents’ responses following the vote were mixed.

“$38 MILLION dollars is the proposed price tag for a new firehouse. For a volunteer fire department,” wrote one resident. “With that kind of money, taxpayers should be getting a full-time, career fire department, not just a building… Other towns have built safe, modern, and fully functional firehouses for a fraction of this cost.”

“I hope those who voted ‘no’ to an additional $40-$50/month out of their family budget believe that such shortsighted choice is worth the sacrifice if and when they should ever need fire or EMS services,” wrote another resident. “This project has been in the planning stages for several years, was well publicized as plans came to fruition, and the BFD made their plans known with several presentations offered to the public.”

Yet another resident wrote: “This has nothing to do with not wanting the best resources for the great rescuers/volunteers of the community. It has more to do with squeezing more out of residents that have nothing left to squeeze. Come up with more creative financing than having the community fund the entire project.”

“I wish there had been an alternate plan proposed with a lesser expense so that the entire thing wouldn’t have to be thrown out!” commented another resident. “I think those who voted against the firehouse plans wish the same. I’d think that most of the ‘no’ votes don’t disagree that a firehouse is needed!”

The original firehouse was built in 1941 and, according to Russell Davidson of KG+D Architects of Mount Kisco, the current bays are too short to house modern apparatus.

In addition, the floor under the original apparatus bay is shored up with temporary steel, there is a lack of mechanical ventilation throughout the building, the fire alarm system needs replacement, and there’s no separation of contaminated and clean areas, a lack of training space, no support rooms for emergency medical professionals, and inadequate parking.

During an April Southeast Town Board meeting, Davidson presented the proposal for a new two-story, split-level (due to sloping property) structure with apparatus bays that could handle the larger firetrucks made today, on property that is part of Markel Park – located adjacent to the current firehouse.

Plans for the new state-of-the-art building included eight properly sized apparatus bays, safe separation of hot zones for contaminated personal protective equipment, warm zones for cleaned equipment, and cold zones for support areas. It also included a training space for bailout drills and fitness drills, and classrooms.

Plans also included a room for turnout gear, a space for dispatch and radio operators, support facilities, a “day room” where firefighters and EMS await calls, a lobby, meeting room, classrooms, and an assembly space about same size as what currently exists.

Upstairs, classrooms and offices were drawn into the plans, as well as a place for firefighters to sleep, a fitness center, IT space, and a commissioner’s room.

Davidson said the proposed tax impact would equate to $270 to $310 per year for a home valued at $500,000.

He explained that architects and engineers first looked into renovating and expanding the current firehouse, which they determined would be difficult and would cost three-fourths of the total price to build new, and require more financing.

“A new building can be financed over 30 years, but a renovation can only be financed over 15 years,” he said. “So even though the costs are lower… the finance costs would have a greater impact to renovate and expand.”