1. Has there been a thorough cost-benefit analysis completed that demonstrates conclusively that KES operating separately will be more cost-effective for both the city and the borough than the current cooperative contractual approach?
2. Can the borough and the city assure their constituents that the separation of the two services will not result in increased tax rates to maintain the existing levels of fire and EMS services?
3. Can the borough and the city assure their constituents that they will see no reduction in their Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating resulting in increased insurance premiums?
4. Without theHVFD's response, can KES assure service area residents that there will be no increase in response times to fire and EMS calls?
5. Without theHVFD's response, can KES assure service area residents that there will be no reduction in the level of service, including the level of training and certification of personnel responding to fire and especially EMS calls?
If the answer to all these questions is yes, then there is no reason not to support KES operating independently. If the answer is no to any of the questions, then the public has a right to know exactly how much this change will cost them in additional taxes, insurance premiums or in reduced levels of service.
If the answer is that they don't know, then the solution is to continue the existing contractual relationship until an impartial cost-benefit analysis can be completed to determine most cost effective means to provide critical emergency services to our community.
Unfortunately I will be out of town working on the flooding issues in interior and western Alaska. I hope someone from this community will ask these important questions on my behalf and on the behalf of all the other residents of the greater Homer area.
Robert Purcell
Fritz Creek
(Robert Purcell is the former chief of the Homer Volunteer Fire Department.)






