Talking with State EMA and especially with fire equipment vendors, have learned that there is a trend towards the elimination and closings of smaller departments. Especially those who are unable to be 100% compliant because of funding or other reasons such as smaller first due areas of responsibility.
FEMA has publicly said that they do not wish to weed out non compliant departments, which makes me wonder if that is what they really mean. Why else would they say it?
Kelvin Cochran of the USFA even said in his acceptance speech last year, that national funding should be directed toward urban areas and career departments. (Frankly I am relieved he is leaving for several reasons.) He may have been a devoted leader to the fire service for one year, but less so to the volunteer fire service. (Hey he drew the line in the sand between urban vs. rural, not me.) Dr. Harry Carter, a contributor here on Firehouse.com even warned me by phone that the smaller departments need to be aware of these same 'biased' trends within the fire service.
Irregardless, there have been consolidations of fire departments and some of the fire equipment representatives have reported that the results have not been very positive or what the change intended to accomplish.
Some neighboring departments that are larger with more equipment are offering neighboring local governments the promise of better fire and rescue capabilities. Some of these towns are finding out that they are ending up paying higher costs for longer response times. Some have even experienced a bias in pro-rating in emergency protection costs based on higher wages per captia or other demographics that the absorbing entity feels inferior towards. These reasons can vary greatly, but one of the more common is that if the larger department is experiencing budget problems, they seem more apt to want to absorb a smaller department who may have better turnouts and especially, better budget and funding issues.
One of the reasons why I am bringing this is up is the present economic situation within the nation. Omaha had to return its SAFER award because it would not be able to meet the participation requirements and many other cities are experiencing similar budget issues as well. Some are doing creative things to become solvent and this will often translate to how other smaller towns and villages respond to these same issues.
Every community must address its three primary responsibilities to its residents. #3 is roads, #2 is water and sewer and #1 is public safety; and it must pay for that protection. One of the ways it is looking to save money is possibly to consolidate its services.
However consolidation of services must work towards the benefit of both entities involved and not for one over the other.
So, Has or is anyone experiencing or know of such activity and can you share what you have encountered with such change?
FEMA has publicly said that they do not wish to weed out non compliant departments, which makes me wonder if that is what they really mean. Why else would they say it?
Kelvin Cochran of the USFA even said in his acceptance speech last year, that national funding should be directed toward urban areas and career departments. (Frankly I am relieved he is leaving for several reasons.) He may have been a devoted leader to the fire service for one year, but less so to the volunteer fire service. (Hey he drew the line in the sand between urban vs. rural, not me.) Dr. Harry Carter, a contributor here on Firehouse.com even warned me by phone that the smaller departments need to be aware of these same 'biased' trends within the fire service.
Irregardless, there have been consolidations of fire departments and some of the fire equipment representatives have reported that the results have not been very positive or what the change intended to accomplish.
Some neighboring departments that are larger with more equipment are offering neighboring local governments the promise of better fire and rescue capabilities. Some of these towns are finding out that they are ending up paying higher costs for longer response times. Some have even experienced a bias in pro-rating in emergency protection costs based on higher wages per captia or other demographics that the absorbing entity feels inferior towards. These reasons can vary greatly, but one of the more common is that if the larger department is experiencing budget problems, they seem more apt to want to absorb a smaller department who may have better turnouts and especially, better budget and funding issues.
One of the reasons why I am bringing this is up is the present economic situation within the nation. Omaha had to return its SAFER award because it would not be able to meet the participation requirements and many other cities are experiencing similar budget issues as well. Some are doing creative things to become solvent and this will often translate to how other smaller towns and villages respond to these same issues.
Every community must address its three primary responsibilities to its residents. #3 is roads, #2 is water and sewer and #1 is public safety; and it must pay for that protection. One of the ways it is looking to save money is possibly to consolidate its services.
However consolidation of services must work towards the benefit of both entities involved and not for one over the other.
So, Has or is anyone experiencing or know of such activity and can you share what you have encountered with such change?
Comment