County based fire department?

[Kramer]

I know this was an old topic on TWD but after seeing we are much more rational here what does everyone think? Does the effectiveness of GCEMS help this thought? I know it wouldn't be a quick project by any means but what does everyone think?

[papacheese]

I just read on firehouse.com last week that Delaware is in the process of considering going to a county oriented organization based on Maryland and Virginia models....

[gotwork]

I firmly believe a county based system for fire EMS and Even Police could be very effective. The hardest part is to get everyone to realize that and actually open to the idea that it could be better with every department in mind helping each other. Closet units respond, locals can actually cross township lines, and the snadbox good ol' boys clubs would be eliminated and replaced by smart decisions that have no biased towards buddy boxes. It will take an enormous amount of work, but GC has laid some ground work for us.

[ENG27SQ]

Dec 15, 2008 9:51:14 GMT -5 gotwork said:

I firmly believe a county based system for fire EMS and Even Police could be very effective. The hardest part is to get everyone to realize that and actually open to the idea that it could be better with every department in mind helping each other. Closet units respond, locals can actually cross township lines, and the snadbox good ol' boys clubs would be eliminated and replaced by smart decisions that have no biased towards buddy boxes. It will take an enormous amount of work, but GC has laid some ground work for us.

A lot of work just planning it. Then come the station closings and shifting apparatus to cover areas of the county that are currently not adequately covered.

I think it would work out a lot better cause it would eliminate the "I'm mad at you for recalling my engine to last weeks MVC, so your off my grids for the month" b/s. I think everyone would work a lot better with each other. With BC FD or something or other on the turnouts, people wouldn't have a reason to keep the "Your crap, we're better" attitudes, which kills the rest. Again this is MO.

[FirstDue312]

In practical application, wouldn't this require all stations to go paid though? Sure there is the sandbox mentality on some grids thats the nature of the current beast. But also, the brute reality is that nearest companies to a box dispatch may not be the quickest to respond due to staffing, which is a major problem. The reason MD's and VA's regionalization works as well as it does is because all their departments are paid with some volunteer supplementing. But with at least half of our county stations still volunteer, practical regionalization seems far away to me unless drastic changes come (imagine how much it will cost to staff all the stations in the county, esp. with the way the economy is) .IMHO, this is the biggest hurdle to clear if Burlington County were ever to regionalize.

[WebBoss]

Dec 15, 2008 11:26:05 GMT -5 FirstDue312 said:

In practical application, wouldn't this require all stations to go paid though? Sure there is the sandbox mentality on some grids thats the nature of the current beast. But also, the brute reality is that nearest companies to a box dispatch may not be the quickest to respond due to staffing, which is a major problem. The reason MD's and VA's regionalization works as well as it does is because all their departments are paid with some volunteer supplementing. But with at least half of our county stations still volunteer, practical regionalization seems far away to me unless drastic changes come (imagine how much it will cost to staff all the stations in the county, esp. with the way the economy is) .IMHO, this is the biggest hurdle to clear if Burlington County were ever to regionalize.

Not all of the departements are career.

In fact, the issue behind equality in staffing and proper compensation was a big driving point behind most county based systems.

If a volunteer house is getting the job done 95% of the time, then let them be. Under a county-based system, those departments who may need supplemental staffing can now get it, where before, they may not have been able to afford it.

Let's think of it this way - if we set a standard for 3 engines and a truck, all staffed with 4 certified firefighters, then everyone in the entire county deserves that kind of a response whether they live in Mount Laurel, Bordentown, or Bass River. Currently, on a county wide aspect, we're not able to provide that, or we're too busy wasting money away while trying to provide that level of service within our own sandboxes.

Personally, even though I firmly believe our county's fire service is screwed up, I think EMS needs to be the first push since it is 85% of the business, and can also be more self supporting once it's set up and running smoothly.

[papacheese]

As Sean alludes, the first thing that would need to be 100% agreed among all parties is what will be considered an acceptable response in terms of personnel and apparatus...once that hurdle has been cleared, the rest (in my opinion) will fall in line. In reviewing the Loudoun County near-miss report, I read that the county supplies career firefighters based on each volunteer station's request...the coverage (if I read it right) is basically customized to meet each station's specific needs.

[1900]

Makes total sense to me...less wasting money on things we dont need and hopefully place money, time and effort and the reason we are here.

I agree with making it County Run Fire, Police and EMS...having been in all three careers I can say that. For example in Pemberton Borough they only have one officer working at a time. Where as in Pemberton Township its 5 or 6 officers (now 12 officers working is what is really needed in Pemb Twp). But I hear more complaints about only one officer working in Pemberton Borough, which in reality is pretty good. Pemberton Borough is one square mile, so that one officer per square mile, pretty good if you ask me...Pemberton Twp is 64 square miles...get it.

Back to the fire/ems side, first I think a study would have to be done to determine what equipment, staffing, moving of fire houses, etc.. would be needed. I mean lets face it not only do we not need all the equipment that we have we surely dont need all the firehouses that we have. We all know plenty of fire trucks that dont move or moved understaffed at best.

After the study trucks coudl be sold and/or moved or the proper equipment that the study called for could be purchased. Firehouses could be sold and now become ratables. As well as new fire houses be placed in tactical locations. Meaning being placed in the middle of several areas to coer those areas better.

Volunteers could be assigned to a certain house, and have more regimented duty crews as apposed to responding from home. Volunteers would also need to meet the same standards as the career staff.

The possibilites are endless. Im know there would be a down side, politically appointed position, etc..I dont think you'll ever get rid of that but...cant be much worse then it is already.

BUT...we cant do it in our own towns good luck with the entire county. We can even agree what to call our BRTs.

[tootall]

And BYTs!!! ;D

[1900]

Dec 16, 2008 0:12:51 GMT -5 tootall said:

And BYTs!!! ;D

HAHAHAHA!...

[voyager9]

I agree with the idea of a county FD/EMS, or at least that we should act like one, but there are some problems/questions.
One question, from a citizen's perspective, is how do you square away funding? If there were a single county-wide FD then this would mean a level-loaded tax levy, right? This would spread the total cost of the Dept across the entire population of the county, regardless of the degree of coverage they need/want. The more populated areas of the county would probably see a net decrease while least populated would see a huge increase over what they are paying now.

How would we explain to a citizen of the very rural parts of the county who doesn't need much FD services that their taxes are offsetting the FD services required by the more populated areas of the county?

Again, I agree with the idea of a county FD.. or more specifically, I wholly applaud the better coordination, combined training guidelines, and shared services/resources that a county dept would bring. I also believe we have a lot of that, or are moving toward a lot of that, now even if we don't get the fancy name..

[voyager9]

I was just thinking about the idea of the County FD, its affect on volunteerism. Obviously in a primarily home-response environment volunteers have to respond to the station closest to their locale.. But what about a primarily duty-crew driven environment? Is there any reason a volunteer would have to run out of the station closest to them? Couldn't duty crews be shuffled around similar to the way career platoons/staffing is?

What about Recruitment? How would recruitment change in a county-wide duty-crew driven system? Theoretically there is a much larger pool of potential volunteers.. Live in all-career Mount Laurel? No problem, we need you to fill out a duty crew in Moorestown. Don't get any calls in Chadsworth? No problem, fill out a duty crew in Vincentown.

In addition, a county dept should have a bigger R&R budget.. opens up the possibility for better ways to court potential members.. though even now the County Chiefs could do something along this lines.. pool R&R resources and start a county-wide recruitment efforts.

[1900]

Dec 16, 2008 21:28:53 GMT -5 voyager9 said:

I agree with the idea of a county FD/EMS, or at least that we should act like one, but there are some problems/questions.
One question, from a citizen's perspective, is how do you square away funding? If there were a single county-wide FD then this would mean a level-loaded tax levy, right? This would spread the total cost of the Dept across the entire population of the county, regardless of the degree of coverage they need/want. The more populated areas of the county would probably see a net decrease while least populated would see a huge increase over what they are paying now.

How would we explain to a citizen of the very rural parts of the county who doesn't need much FD services that their taxes are offsetting the FD services required by the more populated areas of the county?

Same way you sell ridiculous school budgets to people or seniors without kids.

[1900]

Dec 16, 2008 21:42:37 GMT -5 voyager9 said:

I was just thinking about the idea of the County FD, its affect on volunteerism. Obviously in a primarily home-response environment volunteers have to respond to the station closest to their locale.. But what about a primarily duty-crew driven environment? Is there any reason a volunteer would have to run out of the station closest to them? Couldn't duty crews be shuffled around similar to the way career platoons/staffing is?

What about Recruitment? How would recruitment change in a county-wide duty-crew driven system? Theoretically there is a much larger pool of potential volunteers.. Live in all-career Mount Laurel? No problem, we need you to fill out a duty crew in Moorestown. Don't get any calls in Chadsworth? No problem, fill out a duty crew in Vincentown.

In addition, a county dept should have a bigger R&R budget.. opens up the possibility for better ways to court potential members.. though even now the County Chiefs could do something along this lines.. pool R&R resources and start a county-wide recruitment efforts.

VERY GOOD thinking! Good ideas!

[RngrVnc33]

I'm open for discussion on the topic (not that I'm anybody to answer to) but in my opinion GC isn't doing as well as projected............. Still have long response times and part-time trucks!

[voyager9]

My point is that there is a lot we can do right now to improve things without having to wait, and pay, for a County FD. You need a few strong people able to push the good ideas, and you need everyone to be able to swallow their pride and accept them even if it is "Change". Realistically that is even more important when setting up a County FD or it will only make matters worse. The same Heel-Draggers that are holding us back as separate departments can easily drag down a county department. This is especially when its first getting off the ground.

I'm not entirely convinced that a County FD gives the citizens better service for less money. Certainly there is greater potential for better service, but I think that almost always comes with a higher price tag.

Advantages:
Consistent response Grids, no favorites.. (can't we do this now?)
Consistent training and SOG's (can't we do this now?)
Reduced duplication of services (certainly this can be improved now?)
Better response times/staffing (usually == $$$$$)
Better equipment procurement (more volume, better deals.. maybe?)
Centralized in-county maintenance (usually == $$$, but better than outsource)

Disadvantages:
More bureaucracy/Politics
More administrative layers (tied to above, but also $$$, little tangible benefit)
Less adaptable / agile (show me any large organization
that doesn't get more rigid/strict as it gets bigger)
More capital expenses upfront (new stations, trucks..etc)
More manpower expenses (staffing comes with a cost)

[Reverend]

Two things-
It is pretty much proven that a county based FD would cost more. It is fact. You dont regionalize to save money...You do it for more efficient operation and spending overall. We are in the service business meaning we provide a service. It is not assumed that it is free. We could do better in the way the service is provided.

Also, your tax point for the rural communities are valid. But the people you speak of are already paying equal taxes to the county through the county purpose tax. IE. I never use RT xxx in Bass River or a County park in Hainseport, but I am part owner of them. Services on the county level are based on the common good of all residents, not set to spite individual residents.

Dec 16, 2008 21:28:53 GMT -5 voyager9 said:

I agree with the idea of a county FD/EMS, or at least that we should act like one, but there are some problems/questions.
One question, from a citizen's perspective, is how do you square away funding? If there were a single county-wide FD then this would mean a level-loaded tax levy, right? This would spread the total cost of the Dept across the entire population of the county, regardless of the degree of coverage they need/want. The more populated areas of the county would probably see a net decrease while least populated would see a huge increase over what they are paying now.

How would we explain to a citizen of the very rural parts of the county who doesn't need much FD services that their taxes are offsetting the FD services required by the more populated areas of the county?

Again, I agree with the idea of a county FD.. or more specifically, I wholly applaud the better coordination, combined training guidelines, and shared services/resources that a county dept would bring. I also believe we have a lot of that, or are moving toward a lot of that, now even if we don't get the fancy name..

[breakingsomemirror]

I like the concept of a county wide fire service and I think it has it's merits.

From a financing standpoint, I think it wouldn't be as hard a sell as one might think. For example, the county has an open space tax, does it not? In theory if I live in a town that's built out or almost built out, then I'm paying for the county to buy open space in other areas of the county that don't directly effect me, correct? Do you think a Riverside resident really cares about preserving a 260 acres farm in Chatsworth? Yet, they pay it.

Now, if people will pay for that, I would hope that they would pay for potentially better fire and EMS services. There are a host of arguments I could make to support and will if necessary but to not bore everybody, I'll hold off for now. I just hope you get my point.

By the way, as of November 2007, the county open space tax was 0.04, which generated an estimated $16.5 million. That could be a nice start to purchasing some vehicles and equipment!

There are two big problems I see. First, people not wanting to give up what they have. As some people pointed out, Burlington County has WAY too much equipment in it! Just look at the riverfront towns. You can practically stand on Rt. 130 in Delran, spit and hit a $1 million ladder truck! Do we need all of them? Nope but who do you think is going to want to give them up? As for stations, let's not even talk about closing any of them. You've got a better chance of seeing snow in July then you do getting someone to agree to close their fire station!

I think staffing could be a problem as well. Logistically, I think it would be a nightmare! I think it could POSSIBLY work with volunteers but ask anybody who's tried to manage a duty crew system and they'll probably tell you, it's a pain in the ASS! People will be all hyped about it at first but then slowly but surely, the DC Coordinator will be on the phone begging people to sign up for crews. Been there, done that.

Now, you could go the career route, which in a lot of ways is easier to control scheduling and the like but that brings other issues. The salaries alone would probably eat up a huge chunk of your budget. Toss in insurance issues, liability issues, the good ol' "career vs. volunteer" issues, etc. and that becomes problematic as well.

What's the answer? I don't know. I could see some hybrid form, similar to how PGFD in Maryland did it years ago (not sure if they still do, it's been awhile since I've been down there). The county would by a certain number of vehicles (say, 4 engines, 2 ladders and maybe a rescue) and then look at the numbers and needs of the communities and strategically locate them in certain stations. For example, perhaps place an engine in Lumberton (no disrespect to 131, just throwing it out there) during the daytime, which could cover Lumberton, Mt. Holly, Hainesport and perhaps even farther outlying areas. Then perhaps put a ladder in Delran that could cover the riverfront areas.

As for staffing, perhaps they could hire a few career staff for daytime hours and then maybe have a volunteer duty crew on during the evening and overnight hours.

These are just examples and I'm not trying to say they are all perfect. Just trying to brainstorm.

OK, I've rambled on long enough. Again, another good discussion and I hope there will be many more.

Stay safe everyone.

[voyager9]

Dec 17, 2008 10:47:16 GMT -5 breakingsomemirror said:

First, people not wanting to give up what they have. As some people pointed out, Burlington County has WAY too much equipment in it! Just look at the riverfront towns. You can practically stand on Rt. 130 in Delran, spit and hit a $1 million ladder truck! Do we need all of them? Nope but who do you think is going to want to give them up?

Not disagreeing with you, but how much money does existing apparatus cost? The plethora of existing apparatus is less of a problem then keeping that habit from continuing. Old apparatus will eventually get sold, wear out.. go away. We should do a better job of making sure any new apparatus purchases fit in with the county goals.

The only minor concern there would be for ISO rating.. my understanding is that one component of the rating is along the lines of "does your local FD have a ladder truck []y/[]n" with no room for "No, but my neighbor 1 mile away does". I could be wrong there. If true then a County Dept is really the only way to reorganize equipment w/out affecting the rating.

Maybe if we all just got Quints, and called the Squads, everyone would be happy? ;D

[voyager9]

Dec 17, 2008 10:39:59 GMT -5 Reverend said:

Two things-
It is pretty much proven that a county based FD would cost more. It is fact. You dont regionalize to save money...You do it for more efficient operation and spending overall. We are in the service business meaning we provide a service. It is not assumed that it is free. We could do better in the way the service is provided.

Agreed. My only point is that we could do a lot to improve the service we provide without the overhead of a County FD. We're already doing a lot now.. no reason we can't continue. Either instead of, or until, the county FD.

Dec 17, 2008 10:39:59 GMT -5 Reverend said:

Also, your tax point for the rural communities are valid. But the people you speak of are already paying equal taxes to the county through the county purpose tax. IE. I never use RT xxx in Bass River or a County park in Hainseport, but I am part owner of them. Services on the county level are based on the common good of all residents, not set to spite individual residents.

Good example, Thanks.