Excerpts from the ChicagoTribune.com:
Evanston city officials have proposed cutting nearly 40 jobs — including five police officers and nine firefighters — slashing the public health department budget, closing one recreation center, and closing and selling a fire station in order to deal with a $7.4 million deficit expected in the city’s fiscal year 2019 budget which runs Jan. 1 to Dec. 31.
The discussion comes as Evanston deals with decreasing property tax revenue, increasing employee and pension costs, anticipated bond debt to pay for capital improvements around town, and costs to rebuild the Robert Crown Community Center, among other factors.
The reserve fund, which ideally should have 16.6 percent of the city’s annual operating expenses, ended 2017 at 12.8 percent. As such, $1.5 million of Evanston’s operating budget is marked for contribution to general fund reserve. The city has marked $1 million for debt service to pay for renovations to the Robert Crown Community Center.
City officials say property tax revenue has not recovered since the recession and sales taxes since that time have stayed relatively flat. Meanwhile, building permit revenue has dropped from a 2016 high and is not expected to recover soon.
- The city proposed eliminating 38.5 jobs. Of those, 21 are vacant and 17.5 are filled. Positions that could be cut include: cultural arts coordinator, legal analyst and liquor licensing manager, facilities maintenance worker, fleet operations coordinator, payroll/pension specialist, junior mechanic, two full-time and one part-time human services advocates, the director and assistant director of public health, communicable disease specialist, one police commander, one court liaison, one police video records specialist, five police officers, nine firefighters, and two public works maintenance workers.
- Another proposal reorganizes the parks department, which could result in one full-time and three part-time positions being cut.
- Fire Station 4, in the 2nd Ward, could be closed and put up for sale, with all firefighter positions there eliminated, according to the proposed budget. That could save the city about $1.3 million.
- In contrast, the city could close the Gibbs-Morrison Center in the 5th Ward, but keep the building and property and lease it out to a new operator. City staff also is proposing eliminating the Storefront Modernization Program, which includes grants to help local businesses update entryways. Cutting that program would save Evanston $75,000.
- Also on the cutting block is Evanston’s Cultural Arts Administration, which helps support local arts. If cut, it could save the city $175,000. Staff also proposed eliminating the annual World Art and Music Festival, which would save $55,000.
- Also proposed is reducing Mental Health Board funding by $250,000, or about 34 percent of the 2018 budget.
Some proposals to help generate additional revenue, staff has proposed increasing the residential parking permit rate from $15 to $30, raising parking ticket fees from $20 to $25, charging $70 for block party permits — which now are free, increasing the wheel tax from $75 to $85 and contracting out the city’s crossing guards.
The council is expected to begin discussing the budget at its Oct. 22 meeting and hold a public hearing on Oct. 27.
Pingback: Evanston Fire Department news (more) « chicagoareafire.com
Pingback: Evanston Fire Department news (more) « chicagoareafire.com
#1 by Jim on October 12, 2018 - 12:40 PM
Does anyone know what Evanston’s max staffing is per shift? I know their minimum is 26 but how many are assigned to each shift? Are engines and trucks staffed with 3 each?
#2 by Phil Stenholm on October 11, 2018 - 11:46 AM
BILL: Another thing about Evanston F. D. shift staffing and Ambulance 3.
When I was dispatching there in the 1980’s, the EFD was constantly trying to figure out how to get the third ambulance into dedicated front-line service without increasing shift staffing from 26 to 28 (which is the obvious solution, but it was a non-starter with the city manager even 30-35 years ago). It was obvious (even back then) that a third front-line ambulance was needed.
The idea was that with a rigid 26-man minimum shift, the EFD could operate Ambulance 3 as a fully-staffed dedicated ambulance only if there were either five engine companies and one truck company, or four engine companies and two truck companies, or four engine companies, one truck company, and one quint company (an engine/truck hybrid).
As I mentioned in a previous comment, operating the 1979 Seagrave quint as Truck Co. 23 at Station #3 was seriously considered in 1980-81, but it couldn’t happen because of the design problem with the water tank and one rear axle that kept it from being operated as a true quint.
So my suggestion back in the day was:
1. Relocate Truck Co. 22 from Station #2 to Station #1
2. Take the two paramedics assigned to Truck Co. 21 and assign them to Ambulance 3
3. Move Ambulance 3 to Station #3
4. Staff Truck 21 at Station #1 with a dedicated driver (the member of Truck Co. 21 not assigned to Ambulance 3).
5. Truck 22 would take all truck “first-calls” city-wide
6. Truck 21 with just a driver would be available to respond to a second incident if two General Alarms were received at the same time, or if two aerial ladder trucks were needed ASAP at the same fire where the EFD could not wait for a Skokie truck to arrive.
While Truck 21 (the RMA) could respond promptly to an alarm with just its dedicated driver (a tillerman would not needed to operate a RMA), either an engine company or an ambulance crew would need to team-up with the Truck 21 driver to form a functional truck company once on the scene of an incident. But at least the second truck could get to where it was needed. And a second truck wouldn’t be needed very often, either.
The only additional issue would be that only Truck 22 could be a TDA. Truck 21 and the reserve truck would both have to be a RMA where only one firefighter would be needed to drive it.
I actually still believe it would have worked very well, but they just didn’t want to try it. Inertia was a big thing at the EFD back then.
#3 by Phil Stenholm on October 11, 2018 - 10:56 AM
CORRECTION: The 1250-GPM pumper purchased by Evanston in 1979 was a Pirsch, not a Pierce. It was a ready-to-go inventory stock pumper (built by Pirsch for no fire department in particular) and hurriedly purchased by Evanston.
The EFD’s first Pierce rig was a 1987, 1250-GPM Dash pumper that was equipped with a foam tank (a first for the EFD) for when medical helicopters landed at the water works parking lot heliport with patients or body organs destined for Evanston Hospital. That’s why the rig was assigned to Engine Co. 23, the closest engine company to the water works.
BTW, the 1250-GPM pump on the 1987 Pierce Dash (Engine 23) was salvaged from a 1968 Pirsch 1250-GPM pumper that ran as Engine 21 1968-83. The pump was still in great shape, and recycling it reduced the cost of the rig.
#4 by Phil Stenholm on October 11, 2018 - 10:20 AM
BILL: Back in 1977, the Evanston Fire Department was advised that its long-standing Class 3 insurance rating was going to be dropped to Class 4 if they did not upgrade their aggregate Front-line GPM.
So the Evanston City Council very quickly appropriated funds to purchase a 1250-GPM pumper from Pierce that replaced the old Engine 22, a 1970 Pirsch 1000-GPM and a 1250-GPM 100-ft RMA quint from Seagrave that would replace Truck 21, a 1968 Pirsch 100-ft TDA, which would be moved to Station #2 and become the new Truck 22. And so the Evanston Fire Department’s insurance rating remained Class 3.
However, the EFD leadership subsequently decided that Ambulance 3, which was an unmanned ALS MICU that was staffed by Truck Co. 21 personnel only when it was needed, should be staffed full-time by the two paramedics assigned to Truck Co. 21 and moved to Fire Station #3. Also the new Seagrave quint (Truck 21) should be moved to Fire Station #3 and replace Engine 23, with Engine Co. 23’s personnel plus the non-paramedic firefighter from Truck Co. 21 staffing the quint, which would be designated Truck Co. 23 with a four-man crew.
However, before it could be moved to Station #3, the Seagrave quint’s rear axle broke when going over a pot-hole because of the weight from the 300 gallons of water in the tank (it should have been built with dual rear-axles). It couldn’t be used as a true quint that could pump its own water to supply its aerial pipe and could no longer carry water in the tank.
And so the plan to move Truck 21 and Ambulance 3 to Station #3 and take Engine 23 out of service wasn’t implemented at that time. Besides the problem with the single rear axle breaking when the water tank was filled, the quint also had just one stabilizer jack on each side so that the aerial ladder could only be safely extended and moved to certain angles and the truck had to be positioned in certain limited positions in reference to the aerial ladder to avoid potential tip-over if a firefighter was on the top of the ladder.
The reason these problems with the quint happened was because the truck was purchased quickly without a lot of planning. The Evanston F. D. had no experience with quints, and they thought it was essentially just like the Seagrave RMAs the Chicago F. D. was running at that time, but with a pump and water-tank. And the CFD Seagrave RMAs had one rear axle and just one stabilizer jack on each side. But because of the pump and the water tank, the Evanston quint was a bit longer and heavier than the 1970’s vintage CFD Seagrave RMAs, and so the specifications should have been different.
Truck Co. 21 and Ambulance 3 were moved to Fire Station #3 and Truck Co. 21 became Truck Co. 23 in 1991. The dysfunctional quint was replaced by a TDA, but Engine Co. 23 remained in service operating for a number of years with a Tele-Squrt pumper. So Ambulance 23 was never actually a stand alone third ambulance. It continued to be a jump ambulance.
Speaking of Fire Station #3, when Fire Station #1 was relocated from 909 Lake Street to Emerson and Wesley in 1998, Station #3 could have been closed. The distance from Emerson and Wesley to the most northeast structures in Evanston (Roslyn Terrace) is 1-1/2 miles from the new Station #1. And all structures west of the canal north of Lincoln Street are within 1-1/2 miles of Station #5. So instead of rebuilding Station #3 it could have been closed. Engine Co. 23’s still district could have been split between Engine Co. 21 and Engine Co. 25, Ambulance 23 could have been fully staffed and moved to Station #5, and Truck Co. 23 could have been moved to the new Station #1, with one firefighter left-over.
#5 by Bill Post on October 11, 2018 - 5:59 AM
In regards to the proposal to cut nine Evanston firefighters, closing a station, and removing an engine company, the real problem is with the city management of Evanston and the city manager’s attitude which makes all the difference in the world.
Here is an example. If you compare Skokie to Evanston. Evanston currently has between 8 and 9 thousand people more then Skokie and both Evanston and Skokie have seven fire suppression companies in service, however Skokie staffs three ambulances and has a 28 person minimum staffing. Evanston has a minimum staffing of 26 and they want to reduce it further. Evanston can easily justify putting their 3rd ambulance in service but the city manager refuses to hire the six or seven extra people to run Ambulance 23 full time so it remains a jump company forcing them to take Engine 23 out of service whenever a third ambulance is needed. Now the city manager wants to close a station. All Evanston has to do is increase the minimum daily staffing to 28 people like Skokie and they can have their 3rd full time ambulance without closing any fire companies.
The Skokie Fire Department has been a Class 1 fire department since 1995, before they made it easier to achieve that rating.
It is ironic that Evanston just acquired a Class 1 rating but now the city manager, in his anti fire department arrogance is trying his best to bring that rating down to Class 2 again.
#6 by Bill Post on October 11, 2018 - 5:26 AM
Phil I would like to thank you for your illustration of why an automatic aide agreement is important. I would like to take that a step further. Automatic aide is something that nearly all fire departments should be using or at least the Chicago area suburban departments.
For those who are unfamiliar with the concept, there is a difference between mutual aide and automatic aide. Mutual aide is when a fire department will supply companies when requested while automatic aide involves dispatching fire or EMS companies based on distance from the incident regardless of the jurisdiction. Simply put it means the nearest unit will be dispatched even if it is part of another department if the station or unit is closer to the incident.
The automatic aide concept is used in metropolitan Phoenix Arizona and has been in effect for about 30 years. It currently involves approximately 26 fire departments that are dispatched through a unified dispatch center. While each department maintains a separate identity with a fire chief, they work, train, and respond together both on all alarms. An example is if a town’s nearest station is a mile away from an incident and the neighboring community’s station is located half mile away, the closer station will be first due even though it is in another district.
It really is common sense that can save lives and property and should have been used in the Chicago area years ago.
Your idea of where the running district boundary line between Evanston Station 25 and Skokie Stations 17 and 18 are pretty much spot on. Lincolnwood could also use such an agreement and even more so on working fires and on extra alarms. Believe it or not on a working fire or Code 4 in Lincolnwood, the 2nd engine due is from Niles Station 3 even though there are two Skokie stations and three Skokie engines that are closer to Lincolnwood. The response order should be based on the distance from the fire just like in Chicago and they should be using change of quarters or move-up companies from other suburbs. While this is done in some cases, many times some departments will pass up closer companies for units that are located further away the incident.
#7 by Phil Stenholm on October 10, 2018 - 7:56 PM
The only way taking Engine Co. 24 (and closing Fire Station #4) out of service would work is if Evanston and Skokie have an automatic-aid agreement (with a common dispatch center) and Engine Co. 24’s (former) still district is split in half between Evanston Engine Co. 22 and Skokie Engine Co. 17 at Dodge Avenue (both Evanston Station #22 and Skokie Station #17 are 1-3/4 miles from Dodge & Howard).
In return for Skokie Engine Co. 17 taking over the west half of Engine Co. 24’s (former) still district, Evanston Engine Co. 25 could add the area of Skokie that is west of the canal, north of Church Street, and east of Crawford Avenue (Evanston Station #25 is 1-3/4 miles from Church & Crawford), the area of Skokie that is north of Golf Road between Crawford and Kostner (Evanston Station #25 is 1-1/2-miles from Golf & Kostner), and Old Orchard Road between Gross Point Road and Skokie Blvd (north of the cemetery) to its still district.
In addition, Evanston Truck Co. 22 could provide first-due aerial ladder response to the area of Skokie that is between Howard and Church east of Central Park, and Evanston Truck Co. 23 could provide first-due aerial ladder service to the area of Skokie that is east of Central Park and north of Church Street.
#8 by Mike L on October 10, 2018 - 1:44 PM
And don’t forget that Sta 2 is the 1st or 2nd busiest firehouse in the city so if the engine is out, the truck has to go and it is slower than the engine and harder to navigate through traffic which slows them down. If the whole house is out, the next engine up is the busiest (21) so they can’t be counted on too often which leaves 25 to come flying down McCormick. Not good at all. And it’s not like Skokie Sta 17 is sitting around waiting for Evanston to call. They have their own calls to go on and can’t, nor shouldn’t, be relied upon.
Back in the late 80’s the fire chief at the time instituted the catastrophic jump company plan which put ambulances at 1,2 & 3 staffed by the 4 personnel on those engines. All four personnel responded on the ambulance no matter the call so 3 engines sat out of service while the ambulance was out. If the call was in 4 or 5’s still, that engine went which meant that, many times, the city was left with only one engine protecting it with the 2 trucks. There were many fires that got out of hand due to horrible response times. If the ambulance was out and a working fire came in, the ambulance would drop off the patient at the hospital and respond to the station to get the engine. Horrible and, thankfully, only lasted a few years until that moron was let go.
My point to that is the domino effect of closing Eng 24 would have the same consequences in terms of companies out of place and unavailable for calls along with the obvious increase to response times on first calls.
#9 by Mike L on October 10, 2018 - 1:28 PM
Michael-
Sta 5 was opened in 1954 at Central and Ewing to cover the growing NW side of Evanston. As far as Station 4 goes, closing it, or any fire house in any town, would absolutely increase response time. In addition to that simple fact, Evanston is home to many narrow, one way streets as well as speed humps on many of them. For Sta 2 to get to the SW side, they have to go north to Main (2 blocks north) or Oakton (5 blocks south) and then proceed west. Both of those 2-way East/West streets are very narrow and have heavy traffic during the day (Main St business district and Oakton and Chute Schools on Oakton) so it’s not like they can speed up and make up time. Response times would increase by about 3-5 minutes from Sta 2 to the middle of 24’s still and 5-7 minutes to the Howard/Dodge area under ideal conditions. I’m happy to see former Chief Klaiber take a stand and denounce it.
#10 by Michael m on October 10, 2018 - 12:20 PM
Wouldn’t that increase response times if 24 was closed? How long ago did they open station 5?
#11 by Mike L on October 10, 2018 - 10:16 AM
Regarding my last post, I meant to say Eng 24’s firehouse is the only firehouse still in its original location. Eng 21 has moved 3 times (Grove, Lake and now Emerson), Eng 22 has moved twice (Chicago Av, Madison), Eng 23 has moved twice (Green Bay Rd, Central) and Eng 25 twice (Eng 21/Lake, Central).
My point to that was it has never closed and been relocated. That correctly suggests that it is in exactly the spot it needs to be and is (or was) recognized as being indispensible. If there was a better spot for it, they would have moved it in 1989 when the original house was replaced.
#12 by Mike L on October 10, 2018 - 10:10 AM
Station 4 is the only firehouse still in its original firehouse from when it was organized in 1924. Station 5 was built in 1954 but Eng 25 had already been organized as a 2nd engine at Station 1 for 30 years. When Sta 5 was built, a new station was also built for Eng 23 and Trk 23 in its present location at the canal and Central. The opening of Sta 5 and relocation of Sta 3 replaced the firehouse at 2504 Green Bay Rd which brought the city up to 5 firehouses. In addition to the 70’s plan of closing 2 firehouses, in the mid 80’s the city pushed hard to close 23 and 25 and open a new house on Green Bay Rd at Ashland/Noyes but the residents in Eng 25’s district screamed loud enough to prevent that. Before the city went to 24/48 shifts in the 60’s, there were 5 engines, 2 trucks and a squad each with a minimum of 4 personnel. The 3 man companies came about with the change to the modern 24/28 schedule. The squad was eliminated in 1980 to keep 2 ambulances up without having to hire more manpower. As Mr Post pointed out, they are already woefully undermanned for the population and building profile of the city. There is no other city (besides Chicago) in the state that has the building profile of Evanston. The city needs to squeeze Northwestern University for some money as they pay NO taxes whatsoever to the city. The University has stepped up in the past few years and helped pay for Eng 23 and Truck 23 but otherwise pays nothing to the city.
Cutting the fire department down is not the answer and, I hope, is a very misguided scare tactic to make the residents accept a fee and tax increase as an alternative. Evanston is a world class city and a wonderful place to live but not at the cost of slashing public services.
Pingback: Evanston Fire Department news (more) « chicagoareafire.com
#13 by Bill Post on October 10, 2018 - 3:21 AM
Joe you are totally correct. Walter Bobkiewicz has tried to make some serious cuts in the Evanston Fire Deparment before. In 2010 he attempted to take one of their two truck companies out of service and the firefighters union fought that arrogant and misguided effort.
The way Evanston fire stations are distributed now are excellent and taking Engine 24 out of service would be a big mistake. Some of you probably are familiar with the ISO rule of not having an engine company more the then 1.5 miles from a built upon area. The southwest corner of Engine 24’s district, which is a valuable commercial area, is exactly 1.5 miles from the station. By taking Engine 24 out of service that area will be put at heavy risk for both fire suppression and EMS first response. If the engine is taken out of service, the next engine would have one mile further to go and Engine 22 is already amongst the top two busiest engines in the city. They already cover a very densely populated area which includes the southern section of downtown Evanston.
In the 1970’s there was a proposal to close down two of Evanston’s fire stations and have only three stations that were all located more or less in the center of the town from east to west. They would all have been located near or around Asbury Street. One on the south end of town, one in the middle, and the other to cover the north end. They wisely decided not to follow that plan. Instead they either rebuilt or replaced four of the five current stations on the sites where they were located. Station 21 was moved from the large headquarters building near downtown that was shared with the police. The current Station 21 is located about a mile and half northwest of downtown on Emerson Street. They rebuilt and had reconstructed first Station 4, then Station 3, and lastly Station 5 as well as putting money into Station 2. Those were wise investments. For them to shut down Engine 24’s house would be a mistake.
Mike Mc I don’t buy the idea that closing Engine 24 is inevitable. I think it was necessary to build a new station for Engine 25 at the northwest end of town which goes about a mile further west then the rest of town and the northwest end is further then 1.5 miles from Engine 23.
I really questioned the wisdom of relocating Station 1 out of all the money Evanston invested in rebuilding fire stations over the last 20 years. The the old location, which still has the fire department offices, much more space and was located closer to downtown.
#14 by Mike Mc on October 9, 2018 - 9:13 PM
Keep in mind these are just proposals. I am sure there will be negotiations. Engine 24 was probably going to go out of service sooner or later. If it does, hopefully the positions will be eliminated through attrition an not lay-offs.
Already a very austere department with only two ambulances and a jump ambo in reserve. Three FFs per company. Not unusual for four, five, and even six of the seven fire companies to be tied up on ems or minor alarms. If I am not mistaken, they send four engines and two trucks (pull a box) if they think they have a working fire with the fifth engine to cover the rest of the city. That will have to change. Personal opinion, but for insurance rating purposes I always thought that was how they got away with three member companies. A city with a downtown area and high rises. Not a suburb.
I never understood why they built a large, new fire station for Engine 25 when they could have just operated two engines out of station 23. A lot of expensive homes near 25 and less valuable real estate near 24. The cynic in me says that was a factor.
#15 by Matt on October 9, 2018 - 7:18 PM
The village manager makes 216k per year
#16 by Collin on October 9, 2018 - 7:01 PM
yeah and the city manager makes 216,000 plus benefits. his name is wally and he has caused the city nothing but trouble since he was appointed. the mayor and the city clerk have nothing to do with it. the city manager runs the city and makes all the decisions
#17 by Martin on October 9, 2018 - 5:56 PM
Mayor makes 25k and city clerk makes 61k per their website. Something is not right.