What the Newtown Fire Services Deal Reveals About the Rising Cost of Safety
After months of tense negotiations, Newtown Township approved a $275,000 fire services agreement with Newtown Borough for the remainder of 2026. At first glance, the number appears to represent a meaningful reduction from the Township’s earlier $350,000 annual position. But when you break it down month-by-month, the “discount” largely disappears.
The $275,000 covers only 9–10 months of service (March–December). Prorated, that works out to roughly $27,500–$30,500 per month—very close to the Township’s prior monthly equivalent under a $350,000 annual figure. In other words, the headline number is smaller, but the underlying cost structure remains largely unchanged.
The broader issue goes beyond 2026. As volunteer firefighting continues to decline and professional staffing becomes the norm, fire protection is evolving into one of the largest and fastest-growing municipal expenses. Township taxpayers are already absorbing a significant millage increase to fund that transition, while questions remain about how costs should be fairly allocated between the Township and Borough.
Looking ahead to 2027, leaders have signaled a push toward a more formula-driven, proportional cost-sharing model—potentially based on factors such as population, assessed value, and call volume—to determine each municipality’s “fair share.”
The immediate crisis may be resolved. The long-term financial debate is just beginning.
Aside from mentioning qualifications regarding their choices, many respondents also expressed opposition to any restart of the sewer treatment plant as a reason.
At the 11 June 2025 BOS meeting, the Chair and the Township Manager made the argument that "we [the CURRENT BOS] issued a letter to the sewer authority saying that the township vehemently opposes any construction of a sewer plant. For the sewer plant to even happen would would require this board [emphasis added] to authorize the township engineer to amend the act 537 plan to include a sewage treatment plant. So until this board [emphasis added] does that, there's no forward progress with this."
The problem is that "this board" will not be the same after the 2025 election. Two new Supervisors will be elected to replace John Mack and Dennis Fisher whose terms will expire on 31 December 2025. Who's to say that the new BOS will not rescind the aforementioned letter and vote to amend Act 537 [The Pennsylvania Sewer Facilities Act]? You have to ask yourself: Why would the Sewer Authority undertake this if it did not believe Act 537 would be amended? Did the Newtown representatives on the Sewer Authority Board assure them that would be the case?
It is imperative, therefore, that we appoint someone who has expressed opposition to the sewer treatment plant. I agree with the majority of survey respondents; i.e, that person is Marc Bjorkman, who has publicly (and privately to me) expressed his opposition to the sewer treatment plant. I spoke with Craig Deutsch who refused to say that he is outright opposed to such a plant in Newtown.
In addition, Mr. Deutsch already serves on 3 Newtown commissions. While I appreciate his service to the community. naming him for another position while rejecting a new volunteer is just the wrong optic that sends the message: "we appoint only our friends."
Related Content: