The Daily Herald has an article about staffing considerations for the Mount Prospect Fire Department:
In 2006, Mount Prospect added an engine to its downtown fire station. But then the recession hit, and in 2011 the village slashed personnel by 10 percent across the board, losing six firefighters.
Fire Chief John Malcolm tried using a “jump” company downtown, switching firefighters between Engine 13 and Tower 13, the station’s ladder truck. That policy ended following a 2011 middle-of-the-night extra-alarm fire at the Colonial Greens complex, when firefighters were forced to rush back to the station to retrieve the ladder truck, which was sitting at the station unstaffed. From that point on, Malcolm decided to retire Engine 13 and run Tower 13 on all calls, including ambulance calls and car fires.
Now, as the village board works out its 2015 budget, trustees are once again talking about the eventual restoration of those six positions. The head of the village’s firefighters union addressed the board this week, calling for trustees to restore the six positions and get Engine 13 back into the rotation.
Later in the meeting, Trustee Paul Hoefert asked Deputy Fire Chief Henry Dawson if the department’s response time is still within safe parameters. Dawson said it is, saying he thinks the average response time is 4 minutes and 17 seconds. Hoefert emphasized, “The fact is, the way we’re manned today, we’re safe. The citizens are safe.”
During his department’s budget presentation, Dawson said the department is asking for $13.1 million, up 1.56 percent. He also provided information on use of Tower 13. Dawson said Tower 13 tripled its responses with the elimination of Engine 13 and is the department’s busiest vehicle, with 1,947 responses in 2014. “In fact in a national survey, out of 202 fire departments reporting, Tower 13 is the 63rd busiest tower ladder in the country,” he said.
He brought up what he called an ironic statistic, pointing out that half the time the department receives a call for service, it gets another call almost simultaneously.
“That adds to the need to keep the tower on the street,” he said.
Board members expressed a willingness to examine the issue.
Chief Malcolm said that the department has by far the lowest staffing of surrounding departments of comparable size. “We’re obviously more efficient having that engine downtown,” he said. “Every day, because we only have two engines in town, when one goes out of town for mutual aid … that means I only have one engine left in this town.”
Thanks Dan
#1 by Bill Post on November 20, 2014 - 12:33 AM
I agree that Ideally speaking that third Engine (13 should be back in ) service. A question that also needs to be answered does the town meet the minimum ISO (Insurance Services Organizaton) formerly National Board of Fire Underwriters and also the AIA ) standards of having an Engine company within 1.5 miles of any “built upon” area in the town and is the Truck within 2.5 miles of any “built upon” area in the town?
As far as Jim’s question as goes as to keeping the third Engine in service and having a neighboring towns Truck responding into town the same question would still apply as that neighboring town’s Truck should still be within 2.5 miles of any “built upon” area.
Regarding the problem of having the heavy Tower Ladder responding on many runs that could normally be handled by a smaller and a lighter weight Engine or SUV then short of putting Engine 13 back in service it might make sense in the long run if all three of the Mt Prospect Stations would go to smaller 75 foot Quints where the first in company would act as an Engine while the second in company would act as the Truck and the third in company could act as the second Engine or Truck depending on the situation at the fire scene. At least having a lighter weight Quint wouldn’t have quite as much “wear and tear” as a heavier Tower Ladder would have to endure. While not ideal ,currently Addison Illinois has decided to go to that kind of a system where all three of the towns Engines are being converted to 75 foot “Quints”. Another option would be to have either a 2 man “light duty” Squad run out of Station 13 it could either be an SUV a “mini pumper” or a light weight rescue squad and it could be dispatched on EMS runs and perhaps small fires instead of having the much Heavier Tower Ladder go on all of those type of runs.
Ideally speaking all of the Chicago area’s fire departments should be going to the type of system that is used in the Metropolitan Phoenix Arizona area where all of the fire departments are run as if they were one large fire department and the nearest fire and ems companies are always dispatched irrespective of the towns jurisdictional borders. In other words all of the fire departments would be on an automatic aide system.
#2 by Fartin' Fred on November 19, 2014 - 12:02 PM
I’m not a firefighter (just a respectful fan of the business)….so I’m wondering how neighboring departments feel about situations where they may consistently pick up the ‘slack’ for an under-manned department next door (either in personel or equipment).
Cause it’s not like they can just REFUSE to help in a fire or medical emergency, cause their neighbor can’t handle it. What types of steps can neighboring departments take to hold their under-manned/equipped neighbor accountable?
Has charging fees for excessive auto-aid ever happened?
#3 by Tom Foley on November 19, 2014 - 12:43 AM
I trust your opinion might not be popular, Jim, but I agree.
I also think about how many reserve pieces sit at departments next to each other. There’s a lot of money tied up here. If consolidation took place, reserve pieces wouldn’t have to be as great.
You have some departments selling their ladders because they can’t afford to staff them. While true most department calls are paramedic related, I don’t think it’s fair for other towns to pay for staffing and the equipment to then come in to town on mutual aid. It’s a great deal for that town, but a tax burden on the others.
Consolidation just makes sense in several cases in the Chicago area.
#4 by Jim on November 18, 2014 - 7:42 PM
MABAS was a band aid to a mass consolidation. Too many villages still look at fire protection in the past rather than the future. If there was a consolidation of services, companies could be staffed correctly and allocated were they are needed. How many firehouses are built a half mile away from each other but are in different villages? How many tower ladders are in the suburbs compared to the city per geographical area? If firehouses and rigs were placed using a bigger picture, you may have less of them but they would be better staffed, decreasing response times but increasing the efficiency and effectiveness.
#5 by cmk420 on November 18, 2014 - 12:32 PM
So, what is the purpose of their POCs if they are not allowed into the fire buildings & they have no medical training?
#6 by tom on November 18, 2014 - 7:52 AM
mount prospect does have POC’s but they are not allowed into a fire building nor are they EMTs let alone medics so, no they could not step in to fill manpower
#7 by DMc77 on November 18, 2014 - 6:41 AM
MABAS should not be used to properly staff departments that don’t have proper staffing to
begin with. It happens all the time, but that is not the primary purpose of MABAS. If departmenta enter into automatic aid agreements, that is another issue.
#8 by Jim on November 18, 2014 - 2:25 AM
Still don’t understand why they couldn’t have just kept the engine . I mean there in MABAS right ? Will they not have an auto-aid truck from a town over or so who will send a truck if the nature of the call requires it ?
#9 by Adam on November 17, 2014 - 9:09 PM
I was under the impression that Mt Prospect had POC’s. Couldn’t they step in to the equation and fill in the need for the extra manpower or have they been disbanded?
#10 by DMc77 on November 17, 2014 - 5:49 PM
How are the response times recorded? From dispatch to the first arriving FD unit? An ambulance or shift commander buggy can arrive to a scene much faster that a 72,000lb tower ladder can. Does that establish the benchmark for arrival? If that is the case the response time is essentially meaningless. How about a time of dispatch to the moment fireground operations begin? A response time of dispatch to water on the fire would be more realistic for measuring FD effectiveness.
And to remark to Tom Foley’s question – with today’s staffing having a CQ engine/ambulance each time a unit goes out of town means the town providing the CQ loses staffing. The only real answer to the chief’s problem with going down to one engine in town is to STAFF ANOTHER ENGINE
#11 by JoJo on November 17, 2014 - 10:40 AM
10 years before replacing!? Add into that it gets used as a million dollar shopping cart every day out of necessity, ambo runs, elevator calls, block parties, trainings, and fuel runs (min of 2-3/week)….and then sitting outside 1-2 times a week to regen……..not a chance it lasts 10 years
#12 by Mike on November 17, 2014 - 9:59 AM
This article was terrible. Yeah their response time is 4 minutes but that’s just for the first arriving unit. Who’s doing truck work when the truck is first in to a fire and has to lead out? And why are they sending the most expensive unit on the most runs. That thing will last about 10 years before it needs replacement. Also what about ISO you went from 3 engines to 2?
These guys need to tell the truth and not use smoke and mirrors.
#13 by Jim on November 17, 2014 - 6:51 AM
I think the Deputy Chief should have educated the Trustee that response times are only half of the equation on safety. The other half being adequate manpower.
#14 by Tom Foley on November 16, 2014 - 10:40 PM
“Every day, because we only have two engines in town, when one goes out of town for mutual aid … that means I only have one engine left in this town.”
Is there a change of quarters to accommodate this situation?
#15 by Fartin' Fred on November 16, 2014 - 9:07 PM
Bring-in Gage & DeSoto & Squad 51.