The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Fiscally Responsible
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
I recall an investment seminar I attended a while back. One thing mentioned that stood out was they were basically giving a lot of information, but not enough to be really comfortable. Essentially a little information can be dangerous to make such decisions that can truly have an impact.
While I understand this was a class project and there were issues discovered that has seemed to affect you, I see that there are still many, many variables that are left out. I don't know what dept you are referring to, nor what the project entailed, but I'm not sure if the project alone enables the statement of "BUT few are really sitting down and taking a hard look to try and figure out how to fix this problem".
To me, that is making a bold statement without regards to actualities, or taking into consideration the variables out there. To me it insinuates that depts aren't really taking a look or even trying to be fiscally responsible, and to me, that is basing a decision on limited information from a class project.
It is easy to sit in a classroom and have a varied opinion of other classmates and working on one aspect of the picture (the dept), but there is much more involved. There is the political climate and that opinion of both the elected officials and public. Most public employees have been vilified over the past couple years and decisions made based off limited information. There are those communities that are not financially strapped and are able to easily afford increased manpower, technology, etc, but choose not to.
When it comes to decisions on "cutting the fat", that alone is an issue in itself, because what are the parameters surrounding the definition of "fat". As mentioned many public employees have been vilified and we have seen pay freezes, increased benefit costs, decreased benefits and so forth, yet to some that still isn't enough in cuts. Yet at the same time, much of these benefits and so forth were promises made to such workers, so again what does the definition of "fat" entail. I will guarantee you can get many different views on that alone. What you may view as "fat" may not be what I would view, so againit comes down to politics. At what point does cutting what is deemed "fat" continue until service really is affected?
It comes down to politics, because in the grand scheme, that is what it boils down to, regardless if the dept is career or volunteer. Despite the funding, it comes down to getting donations, or being involved with govt and so forth. It is about the dept doing its part to warrant funding which is political. It is about the dept convincing the public of the value they provide, how they are good stewards of the funds (tax or donation) and to make the case why funding is important. Years ago, public safety was a given, today we see fighting tooth and nail just to maintain the bare basics.
Another challenge is the "fear factor" involved. It doesn't take a masters in fire science to understand how consistent cutting WILL affect services one way or the other. Yet, how else do you go about to make the case? Say you keep seeing cuts, be it services, maintanence, repairs, manpower, etc under the guise of trimming the fat. You have the dept, or union many times, saying how this will affect services and lives and so forth. It is easy to feign off such message as fear mongering just to keep what one has. Yet, should one wait to have people receiving services be affected? Unfortunately that is what we are seeing today. We are seeing where services have been cut so deep it truly does have an impact of the public....yet those decisions are feigned off by those supporting the cuts, while those fighting against have used the examples.
Revenues are another aspect where there are limitations. For the most part fire depts are a public service and not there to be a money generator. In fact that really is all govt, it is there as a service, not a profit generator. While there are ways to raise revenue to offset costs, there are limitations to what can be done to generate revenue, while maintain effective services. EMS is typically the easiest and best revenue generator for the fire side of things. It depends on the community and how those revenues are applied. For my city, revenues go into the city's general fund, not the FD budget. Yet, when it comes to EMS, and the service level,as well as a revenue generator, the issue comes down to extent. A dept can increase revenue by doing things like non-emergency transports, special event standbys and so forth. However, the question is to limitations. A dept could easily send out all its ambulances on a non-emergency transport for revenue generation, but what happens when the emergency call comes in?
I could keep going on, but really the point is, there are ways to curb costs as well as ways to increase revenue, yet there is a lot more in terms of variables to look at as well. Furthermore, it is disingenuous to insinuate that most depts are not really taking a "hard look" at fixing the problem. More often than not there are more hard looks being done, but also looking at the whole picture, it just tends to happen behind closed doors. It is about maintaining a balance because it is more than just fiscal responsibility, but a responsibility to provide essential services as well.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Ben they pay consultants for this type of study. I have done them before. Takes 6-9 months to honestly review and "study" a department You will never get answers from your limited informational post. It requires full disclosure or "transperancy" from the players and often that is not easy to get. Things like full budget $ disclosure, population and square miles of protection, # of stations, Fleet; apparatus and equipment amount, age, condition, who does maintenance, internal or external, A manpower review, Paid, POC, volllie, Training levels and certifications, Call volume, Call volume response study (peak times/slow times) Service delivery modeling, (do they deliver Fire, EMS, HAZMAT, tech rescue) do they do first response EMR only or do they offer BLS/ALS transport? Do they do fire prevention, inspections, code enforcement? Is it internal or external? Building Department Code Enforcement or just Life Safety?
I can go on and on...
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
Further, the consultants may be nothing more than paid hacks hired to push the agenda of the politicos.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Stoll on
-
Thank you for your reply john. Yes the class project we did was only a short time but thihs was through a 10 mmonth officer course. The point your missing is that there are a lot of departments doding nothing about thier finances and wnting more anmd more for nothing. I say this firm because not only do I see it around the metro area I work and live in where there is 25 plus departments but becaause I have asked many different people around the states during seminar weekends on what they are doing to become more responsible. A big change came out of our deprtment one year after we set out a ten year plan for ourselves. We had gone from having 15 year old medics and out dated monitors to two brand new medics and two brand new zolls. None of that was done on grant money. This is currently year two and we are right on track with what our goal is.
The class project was just a basic idea that was brought to us by a college professor with over 40 years in the service and is well known nationally. You were stating that the politial aspect is also an issue. Good news this project was finalized with a townhall meeting in front of a lawyer, judge, accountant, two fie chiefs, and a city trustee from a local township. Durring the presentation there were verying quetions hitting many different topics. There were anticipateable questions and some questions thaat were out of random or just experience from the pannel. Upon completion we had convincd the pannel that over a period of ten years the department would not once need to ask for an iincrease in budget as long as certain things were set in stone so the department would not lose the revenue it generates.
There is no "fat" needing to be cut. The point of becoming fically responsible is trying to figure out how do I stop the depaartment from needing more and more and eveentually maybe ask for less. It is possible, I wont say it will work for everyone but I would guarantee if all of the departments in the United States were to make out a ten year strategic plan and tried to stick to their goals, 70% would see a positive outcome at the end of those ten years. The other 30% would not, due to unexpected hardships, employees, tradition and no guidance.
You do not need a masters in fire science to undersand the "fear factor" rutine. A Masters in fie science also isn't required for someone to figure out how to work with less and make it work. I have worked on a department with four stations that have housed 3 medics which the newest was 1998, 4 engines with the newest being a 2005 and the oldest 1972. We also housed 4 tankers which none were newer than 1978 and the oldest was 1962. We had tools that have seen better days. Rescue equipment that was four generations old, and the newest set of gear was 7 years old. We were a 1600 call department covering 28 sq miles. Our ems to fire ratio was 8 to 2 and in 2010 we had 15 structure fires and out of those 15 only 1 was lost. All of this is done off of a Miillion dollar opperating budget. We had some of the worst equipment I have ever seen, but we made it work. The phrase "adapt and overcome," is used much in the fire service but it is mainly seen on a call when something happens unexpectidly or breaks. Why can't wew adapt and overcome to the many "fear factors" that they throw at us. Plus they can't be "fear factors" or "scare tackticks" if we don't let them be. "fear factors" are not used to run us further in the ground they are used to fight against resistance. If you have politicians using "fear factors" against you then it is time to step back and work together not cross your arms and say no.
The hard facts are the ones no one wants to swallow. Unfortnately in this day and age and economy the nice toys and latest and greatest are not plausable for a majority of depts even though a good chunk of that majority will swear up and down in a city meeting that they need that half a million dollar toy to save their citizens lives and property. Along with expensive equipment, unnecessay spending and extra toys can take a toll on a budget, but also other things can too. The point I am trying to make here is that if you can take the things that burden your budget the most and condense them, not eliminate, and only get what is needed. Then departments will be able to see those nice new expensive toys roll through their bay doors and the city council will be able to see the liht because you possible took two peices of equipment and which both cost $15,000 each a year annual in maintenance and $10,000 in fuel cost annual and reduced it to %5,000 on maintenance and $8,00o on fuel. In a Ten year time span it would have paid for $120,000 oof iitself in savings. It is the forward thinking that will make more departments more fiscally responsible not begging for more money.
-
-
Don, True or they could be professionals who review and suggest change for which some organizations simply can't see due to culture or tradition of "that won't work here because we have always have done it this way" - mentality.
Ben, to become fiscally responsible you would need to know the facts and then determine what could be stretched, like your reply to John. Increasing service life of a rig, or reducing line item for maintenance is only fiscally responsible if the line item is never fully used. Because stretching service life often increases maintenance costs, and reliability. Major breakdowns bury many administrators in stretch years 3 or 4 when they continue to run the rigs and eventually have a big dollar rebuild. Plus you need to take into consideration the reduction in trade in value (or private sale) verse an annual fiscally responsible savings when it comes time to making a capital improvement purchase for vehicle replacement. I have seen a medic unit yield 15-20K less when it is traded in 3 years later as compared to the prime mileage/age for trade in.
-
-
So Ben If I am reading your post correctly you downsized your fleet by condensing two vehicles for the cost savings?
"you possible took two peices of equipment and which both cost $15,000 each a year annual in maintenance and $10,000 in fuel cost annual and reduced it to %5,000 on maintenance and $8,00o on fuel."
If so, what were the apparatus involved, what did you remove from service and did it effect your departments ISO rating for community protection? If it did, what was the cost to the citizen or commercial business owner with said reduction?
If I read that wrong, how did you reduce both the maintenance costs and the fuel for both vehicles if they were both kept and run the same amount?
-
-
FETC I am glad you asked. I would like you to keep in mind that when your hitting rock bottom you can only look up. To answer your first question we had decided to replace the oldest tanker and the oldest engine. Now for a quick size up, our engines are the size of what NFPA considers a tanker, but the pump capacity on them are 1500 gpm while our tankers are around 750 to 1000 gpm with the same size tanks as our engines. From that point we assesed the tools on both aparatus that are needed or required. From there we got a rough idea of what space we were looking to need. The things a lot of us did not realize at the time was the amount of tools we had that we never used or use maybe once or twice a year. Once we sorted those tools out, which was about 30 tools, we only kept the ones that were absolutely needed and could not be replaced for another tool. When we finished we got estimates and came up with a 1500 gal pumper tanker with a 1500 gpm pump.
Now rememebr when I said don't forget about rock bottom, this is where that comes in. Our area is in a very poor and rough neiborhood in it's urban areas and moderate and calm in the rural areas. So first off we get the support from our community completely. we pass our small levy's and serve the community but a big majority do not pay taxes due to the poverty in the area. This was even prior the current economy. So with the small budget our ISO is something that is hard for us to focus on due to cost. We are a rural 9 and urban 6. We have not had another ISO since the new truck was put in service but we researched it prior and found out with its location and the capacity it will make no differance because of the amount of apparatus we have.
Now this is my favorite question. How did we reduce both maintenance costs and the fuel cost? This is very simple and wish we would have thought of this before. On any given shift there is one crew at each house. Three of the houses run one medic and every house runs an engine or a tanker, call decided. Out of the four houses, two of them also have volunteers. Five vol. at one and six at another and our max is twelve volunteers. When they show up they bring the last remaining apparatus. Now our minimum staffing is 3 persons per house at any time and will not reach more than 5. So long story short if we were to get everyone on a call and out the door, without call backs, we leave two apparatus behind. so we decided to combine these apparatus. Now the simple part if this is the cost of maintenance and fuel. The older the apparatus the more it will need repairs, simple as that. I don't care if you do preventative maintenance or not it is going to cost more to keep up with the problems the older it gets. The fuel cost is a combined cost before I confuse anyone. So between two apparatus it was $10,000 and is now $8,000 and that is due to the better fuel efficeny of new apparatus compared to old apparatus. We plan to replace one more engine and tanker to bring down our cost even more. Looking at that from a financial stand point it's like getting two for the price of one with less headaches.
-
-
The problem is the whole working with less and continuing to band aid old JUNK equipment is eventually you will reach a breaking point. The breaking point may be too few people to safely accomplish the job, or even efficiently accomplish the job. Or it may be the continual unreliability of old, obsolete, hard to find parts to keep the stuff running apparatus and equipment.
The issue is less about working with less than it is working with enough to do the job properly. Look at the case of LT Doug Bell in Benton Harbor, Michigan. They had laid off the majority of the fire department to create a public safety department. LT Bell responded as a crew on ONE and after that some of the public safety officers arrived and a recall for off duty and reserve personnel was done. In the meantime he was severely burned... So much for working with less to save money. Now the city can pay worker's compensation, his hospital bills, rehab, and if he doesn't make it back disability for the rest of his life.
That Ben, is the reason why your broad stroke statements are absolutely meaningless without doing indepth studies, and analysis, of each and every fire department you wish to spread your working with less nonsense too. People with an agenda to cut spending will justify whatever they do even if the experts say this is wrong and will affect safety of the citizens and firefighters. Sometimes those words are hard truths that the penny pinchers don't want to hear. You want to call them "fear factor routine" some times they are, but sometimes they are hard truths. Look at Benton Harbor, look at Detroit, look at the pathetic state of affairs in Washington DC...
The facts are not everything is about "nice toys," or even the "latest and greatest." Sometimes it is simply about apparatus that are so old and decrepit that they aren't safe or reliable. Sometimes it is about equipment that works and is reliable. Sometimes its about PPE and SCBA that aren't a hazard.One of my POC FDs used to have all equipment and PPE on a yearly replacement schedule. We bought so many sets of PPE a year, so much hose, and other tools so as not to have to go and say we need $100K for PPE this year. It worked great until we got a genius politician in place that cut out budget arbitrarily by 38%...That was 10 years ago and we are still playing catch up today. FISCAL PLANNING...we did our job, the politicos failed miserably at theirs and we took the brunt of it.
-
-
The point your missing is that there are a lot of departments doding nothing about thier finances and wnting more anmd more for nothing. I say this firm because not only do I see it around the metro area I work and live in where there is 25 plus departments but becaause I have asked many different people around the states during seminar weekends on what they are doing to become more responsible
I'm not missing the point at all, I said it is a bold statement without regard to actualities involved, or taking into consideration the variables out there. You are still basing your comments off of limited knowledge from your own area as well as limited insight based off of discussions you may have had. Can you honestly speak for absolute certainty that all those people you talked to have a direct insight to all the details within their dept? My point here is that there is so much more to the overall picture than a limited view to be making the claims, especially to say that the majority of depts are doing "nothing". In reality we have seen a shift in how depts all over have encountered reduced budgets and so forth or tasked with cost reductions and there has been information sharing and so forth that many depts have adapted to. Saying that most depts are "doing nothing" is ingenuios.
The class project was just a basic idea that was brought to us by a college professor with over 40 years in the service and is well known nationally
Fine and good, that is the job of an instructor to challenge the students to come up with solutions to a problem and so forth and to apply what they have learned. It isn't the project aspect at all, in fact it sounds to be a very good project to illicit opinions and apply problem solving to come to solutions. The issue though is this is still a class project and there are still many more variables to account for the overall picture in the real world.
You were stating that the politial aspect is also an issue. Good news this project was finalized with a townhall meeting in front of a lawyer, judge, accountant, two fie chiefs, and a city trustee from a local township. Durring the presentation there were verying quetions hitting many different topics. There were anticipateable questions and some questions thaat were out of random or just experience from the pannel.
Not the political aspect to which I was referring. You presented your project to a limited panel with varying expertise, but still doesn't account for the public input, the individual political views of elected officials, the overall budget issues, and so forth. Essentially there is more involved than the limitations you may have experienced. Furthermore, I was speaking in general terms on several aspects that comes into play.
There is no "fat" needing to be cut. The point of becoming fically responsible is trying to figure out how do I stop the depaartment from needing more and more and eveentually maybe ask for less. It is possible,
Ben, in your last sentence or your original post, yuo asked about "interesting ways to maybe cut fat". Now you say there is no "fat" to be cut. My point was the difference in opinion in what one may construe as "fat" and also as to how much is able to be cut without having adverse impacts. Let's remember there is still a service level to provide as well as a population to protect. The fire service is still a service and as a result costs money to operate. Consistently cutting does have an impact and DOES affect the political aspect. For instance, just look at the federal govt right now. We have seen impacts of the sequester affect Navy deployments, tuition assistance, air traffic control towers, etc, etc. As a result we see varying opinions out there that affect the public. Same thing with this, it is about a balance and what you may perceive as "fat", someone else may disagree.
Is there a way to look at things and be fiscally responsible and to operate on a smaller budget, Yes it is. However, there is still overall issues involved. I'm not saying that depts can't or shouldn't look for cost saving measures, but there is more to things than simplistic conclusions.
Why can't wew adapt and overcome to the many "fear factors" that they throw at us. Plus they can't be "fear factors" or "scare tackticks" if we don't let them be. "fear factors" are not used to run us further in the ground they are used to fight against resistance. If you have politicians using "fear factors" against you then it is time to step back and work together not cross your arms and say no
I think you are missing the point here. By the "fear factor" issue I was referring to where uts DO affect services, such as brownouts, company closures, station closures, etc. In places like Philadelphia and Baltimore, we have seen where there have been significant losses and deaths from fires in neighborhoods where a company was browned out for the day or a company/station closed and so forth. My point was you tend to see a dept, or many times a union, making a case that the budget decisions can have an adverse impact on the service levels to the people in that immediate area, as well as affect other areas, because other companies have to travel further etc. It tends to be the politicians who control the purse strings that say that service levels will not be affected when in reality they are.
As for politicians using such tactics against "you" and working together, as to what point? In most cases I would see this as being attributed to labor negotiations and what one should be paid and benefits. In many cases, especially in career depts, we have seen where labor unions have tried to work with politicians and so forth and have made concessions etc to "work together". In many cases we have seen where the politicians keep coming back for more and more and quite frankly, there becomes a point when you have to push back so not to be consistently taken advantage of.
Unfortnately in this day and age and economy the nice toys and latest and greatest are not plausable for a majority of depts even though a good chunk of that majority will swear up and down in a city meeting that they need that half a million dollar toy to save their citizens lives and property.
What are you basing this off of? I have seen more issues being presented in regards to neglect of current rigs and tools and how they are a safety issue because of that neglect. For instance, take Washington DC fire dept and the issues with rigs and equipment in disrepair because of budget issues. Same thing with Detroit and that the FFs are told they can not use their aerial ladders because of lack of testing and so forth. These are actual safety issues out there and unfortunately seeing more and more than a bunch of FFs sitting in a town hall asking for some new rig.
Along with expensive equipment, unnecessay spending and extra toys can take a toll on a budget, but also other things can too.
Again, what are you basing this off of? What kind of "extra toys" are you talking about here? One could perhaps view a TIC as an "extra toy", but such "toys" have been attributed to saving a lot of money by finding a hidden fire, locating heat sources, saving lives. A radio could have once been viewed as an "extra toy" but has shown to be an invaluable and lifesaving part of a FFs equipment. Flashlights could be viewed as "extra toys" but also have proven their value and uses. Jaws of Life could be viewed as such, yet has shown the speed and effectiveness in saving lives over past methods.
Yes, there are things that can be viewed as being an "extra toy" and there are some things out there that can be looked upon as nice to haves, but not a need. There are ways that a different technique or skill can be used to accomplish the same thing as such new equipment and so forth, but again the final decision comes down to opinion. If it wasn't for depts and FFs pushing for some of these "extra toys" as mentioned, we may not have seen the lives and property saved because of them.
I understand the concept to which you are promoting, but these decisions and actions should be done after a thorough look at the bigger picture for an individual dept. While you may not see the same actions you and your class came up with being implemented in your part of the world, doesn't mean that fiscal responsible decisions are not being made either.
Don brings up many good points in regards to "cost" such as work compensation and so forth. Along the same lines is the age and condition of equipment and certain state or NFPA standards. PPE has a ten year life span before it should be replaced and can be quite a cost measure if not budgeted appropriately. Putting off the purchase of a new rig as part of a cost savings may work and be effective on paper, but what if it breaks down during that 10 year plan? Do you have back up available, are you going to fix it, refurb, replace, what really is the most cost effective solution? All things to consider.
Another thing when it comes to budgeting is that years do differ for all sorts of reasons. Yes it is possible to look at cost saving meaures and work to implement them, but are they sustainable and effective in the long run as well as not compromising a service level? If you short your budget and say you will put off replacing SCBAs for a couple years, it may be possible but if you consistently have such a reduced budget, how do you explain to the elected officials that you need a significant increase because your SCBAs are obsolete and need replacing? What if you look at not sending members to certain training for a couple years and then elected officials expect to see that cost savings in the budget, but there is now disparities in training? My point here is that part of being fiscally responsible is not just about realizing a budget reduction or saving money, but looking at the whole picture.
Is it possible to be fiscally responsible? Absolutely. Does this mean that most depts are not? Absolutely not. There is much more to the overall picture than looking at things in simplistic terms. A bean counter can look at the cost and so forth of certain things, perhaps come up with a fiscal "solution" but don't necessarily look at the big picture. How does this affect service? How does this affect standards and requirements? How does this affect personnel? Can we afford this? Do we really want to afford this? and so forth. That is why I said there are more variables to account for in the long run, especially to be making such claims that most depts are not being fiscally responsible.
-
Permalink Reply by Norm Tindell on
-
I keep thinking back to the new documentary on the Detroit FD entitled, "Burn." http://www.detroitfirefilm.org/
The population of the city has dwindled from 1.8 million in 1950 to about 900,000 today, but the FD's workload hasn't declined. They mentioned that the department responds to an average of 30 structure fires each day.
While the department's workload has remained heavy the tax base has fallen, causing the city to reduce the budget. The result is station closures, aging equipment, fewer repairs, fewer replacements for things like PPE and fewer wage increases.
I was moved by the stories told by the Detroit firefighters who've suffered through this, but I also felt sorry for the commissioner who has to deal with the budget crunch and the flak he gets from both sides.
That's a worst case scenario for bean counters and is a dramatic lesson for everyone who might find themselves in a budgetary shortfall.
Loved the show, but was quite saddened by the predicament they're in.
-
Permalink Reply by Derek J Sinesi on
-
Ben, I'm not sure about cutting the fat. But I have to believe most of the problems in big city departments are the same as big government. It's all about the politics of it all. If you want a example look online at the mess in D.C. . I have to believe that when it comes to saving life's and property their is no fat to be trimmed. I know there are departments that have lots of money and spend it on all kinds of crazy stuff. Just look at some of the departments in New Jersey and Long Island. I'm not just picking on them there are others around the country.
When it comes down to reducing budgets in the big cities they always look at the first line's of defense and protection. They reduce manpower, repair budgets, equipment and ect. Then they say the departments are not doing their jobs and so on.
I would like to challenge you to read up on the problems in D.C. take what information you can get and apply what you learned to that situation and let us know what you think would help. I know you won't be able to solve the issues because of lack of information but would love to hear your input.
-
-
Ben,
Thanks for the reply. I am getting a better picture now. What is your call volume and I understand you have a crew on duty at each of the four houses. A question I ask to every study, is do you have an operational response policy or guideline? and if not you should draft one. You see you mentioned the volunteers come in and take the last two remaining pieces of apparatus on calls. Your reduction in the one truck and the savings in fuel has made you fiscally responsible. Congrats.
Here is a suggestion. With a operational response policy or guideline, control the number of apparatus movements on a majority of your calls. That could have been done without the reduction in the fleet. I always cringe when I ask a volunteer or even a paid firefighter hey when they tone out your department do you know what piece of equipment to take? Many say they take whatever truck is available when they arrive to the station. "A yee all come" mentality.
Controlled responses, reduces wear and tear, greatly reduces emergency response liabilities, and the amount of fuel useage and maintenance costs associated with however many trucks you have. (I have even seen policies for flow of traffic responses on fire alarms for all units except the first due appratus in some progressive departments) They still have movement with apparatus heading toward the address but with today's cellphones, fire alarm, etc. Notification is pretty early and there is alot more information to determine if you need to roll the whole barn Code 3 or just a single piece still alarm.Want to know what the most common answer I get when I suggest that if you can't make the first due truck, then you should sit in the station and provide coverage...... nobody will come anymore if we tell them to hurry up and just sit here in the station.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
