The Daily Herald has an article which talks about the Village of Barrington looking at the fire department for cost savings.
Though several village departments have experienced layoffs and staff reductions through attrition during the past few years, the fire department hasn’t been among them, Village Manager Jeff Lawler said.
Despite taking pride in a budget trustees already are describing as conservative, village officials have pledged to examine the fire department this year for even greater cost savings.
A familiar theme has popped up throughout the country is the reduced number of fires and the increase in EMS responses. Like many other city councils, there appears to be talk of placing more of the burden on mutual aid companies.
The quest for greater efficiency in costs and equipment deployment will rely heavily on the fact that the majority of fire department calls are medical, and that all structure fires in the region are fought using the mutual aid from several departments anyway, Lawler said.
The entire article can be found HERE.
#1 by mike on December 1, 2011 - 12:48 PM
Barrington is a poor department to use as far as staffing and responses go. They operate out of 3 firehouses with 11 people on duty. So doing the math station 1 has a BC a 2 person engine and a 2 person ambulance. The other 2 houses have a 3 person jump company. Fire protection costs money bottom line. If you want a properly staffed fire department that can safely complete many of the first in tasks on a fireground or give the best care on a serious EMS run then it’s going to cost money because manpower costs money. BTW NFPA 1710 was written around a 2,000 SQFT house not a 10,000 SQFT house which is typical in Barrington. Ask yourself this question if it was your emergency would you want a properly staffed FD showing up or do you want a skeleton crew coming that can’t get most of the initial tasks done because they were set up to fail before the alarm even went off?
#2 by Keith on December 1, 2011 - 9:33 AM
There’s a reason why departments / districts have dedicated companies in service and that is due to response times established by the NFPA, ISO & AHA to name a few. In my opinion, having an EMS jump company chase vehicle is going to hinder our abilty to meet those response times or cause more work for our fire alarm operators to piecemeal still alarm assignments during multiple call situations due to EMS runs where chase vehicles are being utilized. For slower or more resource available departments this may work but not for those that are just getting by to provide the basic services for their community or their residents this is moving toward a logistical nightmare!
#3 by Keith on December 1, 2011 - 9:24 AM
Tom, I don’t totally disagree with your comments about the justification of responding an expensive piece of fire apparatus to EMS runs because of the excessive milege, wear and associated maintenance and fuel costs, but in the real world how are the busier suburban departments supposed to operate with an EMS chase vehicle that’s a jump company with an engine or truck company? More and more departments / districts are laying off personnel or are not replacing retirees by attrition forcing the “do more with less” answer from both the bean counters, jaded politicians and fire service administration. If everyone is cutting back on service and manpower and incident responses are increasing, you CAN NOT rely on mutual as the answer.
#4 by Tom Foley on November 30, 2011 - 6:16 PM
Not local, but here’s one example… some of the comments below the article provide some clarificiation. I’m not even suggesting go so far as an SUV… but this illustrates my perspective.
http://firechief.com/ems/shreveport-sprint-ems-20100805/
#5 by Tom Foley on November 30, 2011 - 6:05 PM
I’m not a bean counter, but do consider myself a fiscal conservative.
One thing I think could be looked at with various departments is running both an engine/truck and ambulance to EMS calls. I understand that often this is because firefighters are paramedics. I also understand sometimes you need a third or even fourth person to move an injured person. But what is NOT necessary is having firefighting equipment on the scene of strictly an EMS call. People yes. A bright, shiny million dollar truck, no.
There are few departments I’ve read about that have scaled back their truck/engine equipment to be more cost efficient. (And you’re already seeing a lot of this with departments getting rid of ladder trucks.) Maybe a piece of equipment about half the cost of a truck/engine could accompany the ambulance to EMS calls. The ones I’ve read about do have basic firefighting capabilities so if they are first on scene can begin firefighting operations.
I know it’s a common practice across the country. I’m not one to fix something that’s not broken. But, I think there is a more creative way to look and see that you don’t have a high six figure or million dollar engine/truck when all you really need is personnel.
Also, if an engine or truck isn’t going out as often it may not need to be replaced as often. (Probably a lot of haters on that comment… I mean who doesn’t like to see a brand new engine or truck?)
#6 by FireMedic553 on November 30, 2011 - 12:24 PM
Sounds like a major abuse of MABAS. Neighboring towns and their leaders need to be aware that their resources will be taken away from their town. And financially Barrington is placing burden on neighboring tax payers to supply their services. Services that Barrington could absolutely afford. Having an assortment of manned apparatus on duty and ready for a fire or major disaster is like an insurance plan, you pay for it and it’s there in case you need it. And of course the article talked about addressing pensions. Stay strong and keep the public informed brothers!
#7 by Keith on November 30, 2011 - 10:53 AM
Just another example of your clueless bean counters trying to strip a already budget cut fire department even more and copping out with the “mutual aid” catch all. The intentions of MABAS is NOT to provide basic operations to communities that are understaffed or covered, but to provide aid in large scale incidents that overwhelm or burden the involved jurisdiction.