UNIFICATION OF COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENTS
Unification of fire and police service—county wide. Now that “Unification” is on the table, the Shadow thought it wise to repeat an article we punished a year or so ago. It is reprinted below (minor editing):
“In order to understand the issues of what is at stake if unification of the all Volusia County Fire Departments into the Volusia County fire department makes sense requires a history lesson or two in several subjects. We will try and address them as separate issues and show how we got to the present predicament of having a number of small over paid and over managed departments.
First, the issue of the number of fireman at each station and how the Cities in Volusia County got to three per shift is more of an exercise in adroit politics by the IAFF (the fire department union) than any real need. There is no difference in response time whether a station has two or twenty holding down the lounge chairs. The “boots on the ground”---the time it takes when the alarm sounds in the fire house until the truck leaves the station, is not dependent on the number that inhabit the station. In a fire, three is hardly better than two, and, anyway, the second truck is there in minutes. In med/EVAC one of the two would be a trained EMS and if the person weighed more than 300 pounds the County EVAC personnel would be on the scene also in minutes along with a second fire truck. Keep in mind, the fire chief in Port Orange stated that for a real structural house fire he wanted at least 16 personnel on the scene and 23 for a business fire.
Now statistics are available because the county operates seven stations with two per shift and fifteen with three per shift (more on why later.) There is no difference between any of these stations in response time attributable to the number of fireman on the truck. Nor is there any discernible loss in service to the residents and deterioration of public safety. Remember it almost always takes only one EMS person on a fire truck or EVAC response vehicle to attend to a med/evac situation, and there is one whether there are two or three persons in the fire house who go to an accident or medical call.
Forget house fires. In a County fire last year, the County fire department got to the fire in a timely fashion there was the question of why they might have decided not to hose it down from a distance. The top floor was engulfed in flames and the house was already, we are told, a loss. The position of our local fire department seems to be that it would be better if three fireman watched it burn rather than two. There were more than four fireman on the scene it seems in less than nine minutes and all four or five determined there was nothing that could be done. Maybe they should have shot water on it from 50 yards away, but the unoccupied house was still a loss no matter what they would have done.
So why Mr. Professor does the County have two-thirds of its stations manned with three fireman per shift? Because my son, when the County insisted on establishing a “first response” program, the Cities insisted that the contiguous County stations have the same number of personnel per shift as the territory they abutted. Voila, 100 more fireman hired in the County not because they were needed but that was the price the IAFF demanded if it were to cooperate in protecting the taxpayers by having the nearest truck dispatched first. Politics, my son, not real need.
Several weeks ago we also punctured the myth that was sold that you needed the third person if there was a serious injury and the EMS fire person had to go with the two EVAC personnel in the ambulance to the nearest hospital. One of the ex mayors of Edgewater said this was the principal reason for three to a truck. Wrong! Maybe once a month, and the fire truck could follow the EVAC to the hospital, and the non existent risk of only one on the truck would not be a reality. Total risk time even if it were real would be a cumulative six hours a year! Yes, dear, at most six hours a year! For which every one of these jurisdictions have one third more personnel that you pay for to the tune of millions of dollars a year.
The fall back position for those opposing unification is taxes. The tax districts run by the County are part of the property tax component in your tax bill. The cost in the City is not separately billed but is in the overall City millage rate. There is no question that your tax bill will go up if:
1. The City sets up a fire tax district with no consolidation, or
2. Consolidation occurs, the County levies a tax district on the territory that was in the City, AND the City does not cut its other property tax millage rate by the same amount that it used to spend on its fire department.
The taxpayer comes out ahead if there is consolidation AND the City reduces its property tax take by the full amount previously allocated in the budget to run the fire department. By the way, setting up a fire tax district would require a referendum. Would you vote for such a new tax proposal?
Now if you accept the second option you are a sucker. But then if Ormond Beach and Port Orange voters accept that their Cities will keep the City millage rate AND VOTE TO set up a fire tax district in addition they are suckers. No cut in spending, just figuring out how to raise more money and get around Constitutional Amendment 1 in the last election cycle. Hey, it is only 18 months before you can tell more than half of the elected officials here that you approve their continued abuse of the property tax authority. As the ad man's slogan goes, in eight months “you can have it your way.”
Consolidation, or now “Unification”, has the promise of significant savings in the current management excesses and personnel. There is no assurance of reform, but there is certainly no expectation that any thing would change locally. We think that the likelihood is that staff would be reduced to levels that are consistent with the limited level of house fires and a more realistic understanding of what is needed for med/evac. Millions of your tax dollars are at stake. What is not at stake is any loss in public safety.