From the patch.com:
Elmhurst aldermen this week pondered ideas to scale back the local fire department, saying they wanted to reflect today’s needs; fire departments are spending much more of their time on emergency medical service calls.
At a budget meeting Monday, aldermen said they understood the need to find ways to run the city’s larger fire trucks less often. Those trucks cost a lot more in maintenance and gas.
The city is poised to budget up to $380,000 for a rescue squad, which officials said would reduce the use of a ladder truck. It was suggested that the rescue squad may cost as little as $220,000. The ladder truck in question was expected to last 20 years, but at current usage rates, that estimate has been reduced to a dozen years. With the purchase of a rescue squad, the ladder truck is expected to last 30 years, according to city estimates.
One alderwoman thought that the city’s analysis that a ladder truck would last 30 years was a bit of a stretch, saying that “There is just no way that anyone on a city council 20 years from now is going to let a fire truck be 30 years old” and that “There are several of us on the city council who already feel that the City of Elmhurst has too much fire equipment. So while I appreciate the desire to want to save money, buying more equipment might not be the right way.”
She suggested the city may want to get rid of the ladder truck in question. In the rare instance in which a ladder truck is needed, she said the city could get assistance through mutual aid agreements with its neighbors.
Another said the council should take a look at the fire department’s spending, noting that over the last few decades, fire prevention efforts, less smoking, and improved building codes have dramatically reduced the number of fires nationally He added “I’m not up here saying we don’t need a fire department, but I do think we have to think about it differently.”
Yet another agreed with his colleagues’ sentiments., saying that the larger trucks leave a massive footprint. “They’re huge,” he said. “I’m all for downsizing to a vehicle that is more nimble and more appropriate to actually navigate our streets for these calls.”
#1 by Rich on December 2, 2022 - 7:33 PM
Bring back paid call people and volunteers. Yes I know every body is full time and union. But bring back to the old day’s. To help out staffing
Also start a cadet or explorer program and promote it and keep with it.
#2 by Tom on December 2, 2022 - 10:19 AM
So looking at this issue, it is something that will be common in municipalities in the coming years. Fire engines going on EMS runs has always been a hot topic. Why does the $1 million plus piece of apparatus running all over God’a green acres for EMS calls? There are the fundamental answers of extra man power, “available on the air”, etc. but otherwise, there is not a plethora of answers. Running a tower ladder to EMS calls is not efficient on the vehicle. Being a fire engine is not efficient on a diesel motor. For a vehicle like a ladder truck which more than likely starts up, runs for 15-30 minutes for a vehicle check, then sits for a couple of hours, runs balls to the wall to a call, then sits. Diesel motors, from what I have always understood, are made to run, constantly…semis run FOREVER! anyways, it is hell on the motors or these trucks the way the profession has to run them. No fault of the operators nor the departments. It is just the way it is. To combat this, sure a mini-pumper/suv works…until you need the ladder. Why pay for 2 vehicles to do the job of one? The ladder truck is the most expensive piece of apparatus, but how often is the aerial itself being used? I would venture to guess it depends on the location of the municipality, the call volume, and building structure. So much of the idea of having an “aerial device” is based off of ISO ratings. Looking at McCook getting the truck they did….sure, if one of the tilt slabs catches fire it will be nice, but if one catches fire I am sure that the surroundings municipalities will send a vehicle, and more likely than not it will be a tower ladder with similar capabilities. Not every department is fortunate enough to have all of the finances to have those resources. The argument to the last statement is that places like McCook shouldn’t rely on other municipalities for resources. That is not realistic! The cost of staffing, vehicles, etc makes that virtually impossible. It is a tough situation. The idea of staffing a tower ladder and a “chase car” is probably what many places will go to. Leaving a driver back at the station for the tower or fire suppression apparatus may be the best move. Send the ambulance, and 2 suppression rig personal to chase, and leave one back to drive the tower so that each vehicle can get out the door. If there is a fire, the car can break off and meet up at the scene. Is it flawless? No…fire trucks typically have 4 seats, they should all be filled, but we have to play with the cards we are dealt. Not every town is able to staff the way NFPA says we should. So many towns are running 2 man engines or 2 man towers…and they make it work. That is what we are missing, we can complain that we don’t have the staffing, but what do we make of it? Harvey still gets out the door and puts fires out, McCook will still get out the door and fill fires out. It will take time to find a relevant, fluid, and cost effective solution, but you can’t blame municipalities for trying. I am not saying, take the truck out of service, sell it, and see what happens, because there will be a fire in a high rise the next week, but what I am saying is little by little try options and ensure there is a fall back if something happens so that the taxpayers are served with the best integrity possible. It is a tough sell to those who do not completely understand the problem, but those who think the way things are is perfect and should never change are just as bad. As a profession we all have to continually be better, and look for alternatives.
End of soap box
#3 by Evan Davis on December 2, 2022 - 9:25 AM
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but up until about 5 years or so ago, EFD’s Trucks 1 or 2 for years would respond with an ambulance to only the high priority calls, like chest pain, breathing difficulty, strokes, etc. If it was a cardiac arrest, Engines 1 or 2 would respond with the ambulance instead of Trucks 1 or 2 since they had additional manpower. Every other call, only an ambulance would respond without an Engine or Truck. Trucks 1 or 2 would also first respond to any call when the ambulance was coming from the other side of town. Nowadays, either Engines 1 or 2 or either Trucks 1 or 2 respond to all EMS calls with an ambulance. I’m not against having fire apparatus responding to ALL EMS calls, but never really understood why the response for lower priority EMS calls. Maybe EFD should go back to what they use to do for fire apparatus response to EMS calls.
#4 by Rich S. on December 2, 2022 - 8:43 AM
This is the way every municipality is going to go now. With all public services. They don’t see the need to pay for any of these services and would rather use funds for pet projects and grand ideas that will waste money. None of these departments need to replace their apparatus as often as they do. Most waste money on the newest toys they can get. Fire protection doesn’t create revenue it uses it so we are the first ones to get cuts. Even though we are the first ones called on to fix anything and everything. Retirement can’t come soon enough, it’s just going to get worse.
#5 by Chris on December 2, 2022 - 8:21 AM
Fortunately or unfortunately, Scott’s point is a point made by a document that deals with the 21st century fire service. It was put out two years ago by the Center of Public Safety Excellence (think Accreditation) and the International City Manager’s Association with input from the IAFF. (https://www.cpse.org/2020/07/06/21st-century-fire-and-emergency-services-white-paper-by-cpse-and-icma/). It talks about the traditional ways of doing business and assessing risk in the fire service need to change with the times, something the fire service generally is not good at.
#6 by Mike on December 2, 2022 - 4:19 AM
John you bring up a very valid point about downsizing. If they do this you will eventually see a reduction in manpower. This is another affluent city that doesn’t care about their employees or services because they’re in their own little rich world
Scott you can make “data” prove whatever you want when you only include data you want.
This is the same city that when the career firemen asked the city to allow them to start running ALS fire companies because of the busy workload and unavailability of ambulances the city said no and their fox was hiring an EMS. “Captain” and putting them in a buggy, even though the majority of the departments firemen are medics.
This village while not as dysfunctional as Oak Brook is, but they’re running close behind.
#7 by John on December 1, 2022 - 8:44 PM
I notice a lot of these cities/towns/villages have the idea that “Oh, we can always get mutual aid-let’s downsize”. Of course,if everyone thought that there’d be no departments at all. Sure, the neighboring departments will respond, but it just doesn’t seem right or fair.
#8 by Scott on December 1, 2022 - 8:06 PM
Making a decisions based on data and not feelings. Good for the city council. Not every town needs a 1.5 million dollar truck let alone 2.
#9 by Mike on December 1, 2022 - 8:01 PM
Great, more “smart” people who know nothing. let’s spend 300,000.00 so we can save a few dollars on a ladder truck. Stupid idiots. If the truck is putting to many miles on chasing the ambulance maybe have the engine chase instead. These elected officials get dumber every day. How do they figure the truck is going to need replacement in 12 years instead of 20? Because of miles? Miles don’t even matter. What are the hours on the vehicle? How about maintenance. This is what happens with the fire department. Your equipment costs money to maintain.
#10 by Harry on December 1, 2022 - 7:46 PM
Well station 1 runs an engine and a tower why
#11 by Shemp on December 1, 2022 - 7:43 PM
Sure, all municipalities want to save the almighty dollar. I get it. Maybe two trucks are overkill.
St. Joseph, MO (used to live there) Station 5 has a truck staffed x 3. On EMS calls they all hop into a SUV equipped with BLS gear. Great idea…EXCEPT if they get a fire call while clearing from Granny Fell Again, the closest engine is about 7 minutes away. They don’t leave one at the house to at least get the truck moving.
I wish Elmhurst FD luck in this matter.
#12 by Chuck on December 1, 2022 - 6:09 PM
“There is just no way that anyone on a city council 20 years from now is going to let a fire truck be 30 years old” – someone should take this woman on a ride to Chicago.
#13 by Tim on December 1, 2022 - 5:24 PM
I emailed the chief. They are talking about a f550 squad like roselles to use out of station 2 and park ladder 2. Elmhurst is one of the only departments with 2 ladder trucks chasing the ambulances so I understand it to a point. That being said I am not a fireman and I dont agree with people not responding to the actual emergencies but only making the laws making the rules.
#14 by Michael m on December 1, 2022 - 4:51 PM
Bensenville took engine 107 out of service to put the truck in service full time.
#15 by Michael m on December 1, 2022 - 4:48 PM
I wonder which ladder truck they are talking about the 2016 tower or the 2020 Pierce?
#16 by Retired FF on December 1, 2022 - 4:28 PM
Another city council that probably has no idea how a department operates and why equipment is needed. That is of course until they have an emergency at their own home or business. Everyone is concerned about the footprint an engine, or a ladder truck will leave, what about the footprint large factories or industries leave.
Do they need all of their police vehicles on the street, why not get mutual aid from other towns?
#17 by Mike L on December 1, 2022 - 4:10 PM
Addison? Oak Brook? Bensenville? What mutual aid truck? Another good department being led down the drain.