Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Automatic aid agreements-Perpetuating the Bureaucracy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post

    Yawn...You are a broken record of inaccuracies.
    Cry me a river Troll.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by JSJJ388 View Post

    Except that it's not redundant? Different communities have different needs. An all county or regional system does not address this. Your system works in a small amount of cases. Mutual aide has worked for decades and still works great. Get over yourself. You are a waste of board space.
    More than one Fire Chief for a merged fire response is redundant, by definition. Figure it out already

    WOrks great with more Chiefs than you need and all taxpayers paying different amounts of taxes for the same fire response. Works great? Not really.

    Leave a comment:


  • tree68
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post
    Just show me your state law allowing auto aid.
    I'm sure I can find it, but I won't bother. NY has a statewide mutual aid plan - that allows us to go anywhere in the state should the need arise.

    My county has a countywide mutual aid plan to which all fire departments are signatories. No individual agreements between such entities are required. That means any department in the county can call on my department, either via an automatic, or via a special call. Even the two career staffed departments in this otherwise all-volunteer county are signatories.

    I haven't heard you mention battalion chiefs, or anything along that line. You're going to need one for each four or five stations, to maintain a reasonable span of control. And every five battalion chiefs will need another chief over them to maintain acceptable span of control. For that matter, each station will require a captain or lieutenant for each shift, which they may not already have in place (the chief may have served that purpose).

    This topic sure seems to be a burr under your saddle.


    Leave a comment:


  • JSJJ388
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

    It's not my system, it's State Law.

    However you join the actual fire response together between two or more fire agencies, lawfully or not, the response will be the same. I'm surprised you don't get that. The Changes with following State Law (my system) instead of auto aid is that redundant fire admins are eliminated and the money saved can hire more firefighters. Also by following State law all taxpayers get to vote on the detailed merger plan that has all taxpayers paying the same in taxes for the new all for one fire response.

    Auto aid could be in your State Law, it's not in mine. Just show me your state law allowing auto aid.

    My system is so.......

    ROFLMAO

    My system is following State Law.
    Except that it's not redundant? Different communities have different needs. An all county or regional system does not address this. Your system works in a small amount of cases. Mutual aide has worked for decades and still works great. Get over yourself. You are a waste of board space.

    Leave a comment:


  • Too_Old
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post
    Personally I think You are the one trolling here too old.

    Obviously I know what I am talking about.

    And a TCRFA does not impact me I live somewhere else in my retirement. I live on an island now, a ferry trip from anywhere, not exactly conducive to auto aid; Thank God.

    You don't know me at all too old, quit pretending otherwise. That just shows the weakness of your argument.
    I disagree with and argue against your faulty premise. Just because I can't agree with you doesn't mean I am trolling.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

    Blah Blah Blah

    You should look in the mirror

    Done with you troll
    Yawn...You are a broken record of inaccuracies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post

    Oh we all know your kind all too well. I'll bet you never brought one cost cutting measure forward when you were getting paid on the job. But now that you are just another tax payer suddenly you are an expert on fire department operations and cost savings.

    Yeah we know all about you. Open mouth ranting but dont listen to anyone.
    Blah Blah Blah

    You should look in the mirror

    Done with you troll

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post
    Personally I think You are the one trolling here too old.

    Obviously I know what I am talking about.

    And a TCRFA does not impact me I live somewhere else in my retirement. I live on an island now, a ferry trip from anywhere, not exactly conducive to auto aid; Thank God.

    You don't know me at all too old, quit pretending otherwise. That just shows the weakness of your argument.
    Oh we all know your kind all too well. I'll bet you never brought one cost cutting measure forward when you were getting paid on the job. But now that you are just another tax payer suddenly you are an expert on fire department operations and cost savings.

    Yeah we know all about you. Open mouth ranting but dont listen to anyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Too old says:

    ""Again, administering the larger entity will require additional resources that a smaller entity doesn't require. Your 'bet' is not a valid tool for administrative decisionmaking.""

    It would only require one fire chief, one assistant fire chief, one training officer, etc and so on instead of multiple fire chiefs and other admin fire officers. Think about that. You think their would be more not less fire chiefs with a merger? That's crazy talk from a troll.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Personally I think You are the one trolling here too old.

    Obviously I know what I am talking about.

    And a TCRFA does not impact me I live somewhere else in my retirement. I live on an island now, a ferry trip from anywhere, not exactly conducive to auto aid; Thank God.

    You don't know me at all too old, quit pretending otherwise. That just shows the weakness of your argument.
    Last edited by Bigjohn24; 09-08-2018, 03:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Too_Old
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post
    You don't need a new system, you merge the existing systems. Nothing really changes below fire admin as far as system.
    You seem a bit naive in what it involved in administering a larger entity. If you join two small fire districts, you may be able to cut out almost 1/2 of your administration cost because the existing chief and admin support could just take on the responsibility of managing an extra station. That has been done in a number of locations around the state, usually when a small district had difficulty staffing their operation or keeping up with the paperwork.

    Your gripe is about 8-9 districts responding 'as one' and you wanted them to merge into one entity. Creating such a multi-jurisdictional district either through merger or through formation of a regional fire services authority is a huge administrative and fiscal project and it is uncertain whether there are overall savings on the administrative side.

    If you are in the same FD by merger or whatever.;Or even a Regional Fire Authority in Washington State, all taxpayers do pay the same property tax rate for their fire service. Not sure where you live but you might think about moving.


    The question is really 'why should they ?'. Different areas have different fire service needs and citizens who have a varying will to spend money on fire protection. That will is expressed through their respective levy votes, 'levy lid lift' votes, the people they put on their local fire district board etc. Govermnent 'by the people for the people' at its best.

    If you merge three fire admins costing $500 K a year each you don't think money could be saved? I bet you could save $750 K a year for more firefighters with breaking a sweat.


    Again, administering the larger entity will require additional resources that a smaller entity doesn't require. Your 'bet' is not a valid tool for administrative decisionmaking.

    It doesn't benefit the citizens to mess with their fire response without a plan brought to a vote, without elimination of redundant fire admins and without all taxpayers paying the same tax rate for the same fire service. Call me old fashioned.
    The citizens are represented through their respective fire district boards. This is not some ominous outside entity that 'messes' with their fire response. It is done by their elected/appointed representatives.

    Have you run for your local fire district board ? Based on your claimed qualifications and the abundance of ideas in your head, I am sure you could be a great addition. You may even become known as 'hail thee, the man who formed the Tri-Cities Regional Fire Authority' (TCRFA). With any luck 10 years from now they'll put up a plaque at the $12million palacial TCRFA headquarters building.












    Still trying to decide whether you are a genuinely concerned taxpayer with knowledge in the subject area or whether you are just a cantankerous troll who just wants to argue for the sake of arguing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by Too_Old View Post

    Nothing. Go ahead, put together a political coalition. Find the funding (about 3/4 of mil should do) to hire a consulting firm to look at your current state of fire protection. Gather all the expenses that are being incurred in the current system.
    Have them design a new system with a regional fire authority,
    - new station locations based on road-miles rather than history,
    - a financing package that covers the current bonds and the cost to set up the new organization,
    - a detailed staffing plan that accounts for accepted standards in terms of span of control,
    - a cost model with realistic staffing cost based on peer organizations,
    - a tax plan that spells out how mill-rates are going to change for all the jurisdictions involved,
    - an evaluation of how the reconfiguration will affect ISO ratings and property insurance rates in the different portions of the service area.

    THEN, with facts in hand, go to the voters across the service area and ask them whether that is what they want to do.

    You don't need a new system, you merge the existing systems. Nothing really changes below fire admin as far as system.


    They will never pay the same. There are differences in tax assessments and differences in property values that will always lead to an unequal burden when it comes to financing schools or public services through property taxes. The benefit of living in a city is that your per-property cost of fire protection is going to be lower. Cost of fire protection mostly goes on a 'per square mile' basis. The higher density of assessed properties in a city allows you to cover much more property within a given response distance around a station reducing the per-property burden accordingly. Living in the country affords you certain freedoms, but anyone who does so knows that there are some trade-offs that come with it. Either higher cost or lower level of fire protection are one of the tradeoffs that come with it. I dont know why this is so hard to understand ?

    If you are in the same FD by merger or whatever.;Or even a Regional Fire Authority in Washington State, all taxpayers do pay the same property tax rate for their fire service. Not sure where you live but you might think about moving.

    You have yet to show that a merged entity will save on administrative cost. Yes, you'll eliminate a couple of people with the job title 'chief of the department', but you will add a bunch of people with the title 'supervisor' to handle the overhead and friction loss that happens if you have to administer a 10+ station department over a large geographic area.

    If you merge three fire admins costing $500 K a year each you don't think money could be saved? I bet you could save $750 K a year for more firefighters with breaking a sweat.

    Auto-aid allows individual entities to cooperate in a manner that benefits their citizens. There is no difference whether two towns share the purchase of a fancy GPS controlled motor-grader or whether they share fire protection. If the auto-aid agreeement in its current form doesn't provide for the sharing of cost, it is up to the boards of those districts that are paying more than they receive to get the agreeement re-negotiated in a way that protects the interests of their citizens.
    It doesn't benefit the citizens to mess with their fire response without a plan brought to a vote, without elimination of redundant fire admins and without all taxpayers paying the same tax rate for the same fire service. Call me old fashioned.
    Last edited by Bigjohn24; 09-08-2018, 12:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Too_Old
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post
    What do you have against presenting a plan to voters affected, for approval, when messing with their fire response by joining with another community?
    Nothing. Go ahead, put together a political coalition. Find the funding (about 3/4 of mil should do) to hire a consulting firm to look at your current state of fire protection. Gather all the expenses that are being incurred in the current system.
    Have them design a new system with a regional fire authority,
    - new station locations based on road-miles rather than history,
    - a financing package that covers the current bonds and the cost to set up the new organization,
    - a detailed staffing plan that accounts for accepted standards in terms of span of control,
    - a cost model with realistic staffing cost based on peer organizations,
    - a tax plan that spells out how mill-rates are going to change for all the jurisdictions involved,
    - an evaluation of how the reconfiguration will affect ISO ratings and property insurance rates in the different portions of the service area.

    THEN, with facts in hand, go to the voters across the service area and ask them whether that is what they want to do.


    What do you have against all taxpayers paying the same in taxes for the same fire service?
    They will never pay the same. There are differences in tax assessments and differences in property values that will always lead to an unequal burden when it comes to financing schools or public services through property taxes. The benefit of living in a city is that your per-property cost of fire protection is going to be lower. Cost of fire protection mostly goes on a 'per square mile' basis. The higher density of assessed properties in a city allows you to cover much more property within a given response distance around a station reducing the per-property burden accordingly. Living in the country affords you certain freedoms, but anyone who does so knows that there are some trade-offs that come with it. Either higher cost or lower level of fire protection are one of the tradeoffs that come with it. I dont know why this is so hard to understand ?

    What do you have against merging FD's and eliminating redundant fire admins in order to divert admin money to more firefighters responding?
    You have yet to show that a merged entity will save on administrative cost. Yes, you'll eliminate a couple of people with the job title 'chief of the department', but you will add a bunch of people with the title 'supervisor' to handle the overhead and friction loss that happens if you have to administer a 10+ station department over a large geographic area.

    Auto aid does none of that. At least not the auto aid I have seen in Washington State.
    Auto-aid allows individual entities to cooperate in a manner that benefits their citizens. There is no difference whether two towns share the purchase of a fancy GPS controlled motor-grader or whether they share fire protection. If the auto-aid agreeement in its current form doesn't provide for the sharing of cost, it is up to the boards of those districts that are paying more than they receive to get the agreeement re-negotiated in a way that protects the interests of their citizens.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Hey too old

    What do you have against presenting a plan to voters affected, for approval, when messing with their fire response by joining with another community?

    What do you have against all taxpayers paying the same in taxes for the same fire service?

    What do you have against merging FD's and eliminating redundant fire admins in order to divert admin money to more firefighters responding?

    Auto aid does none of that. At least not the auto aid I have seen in Washington State.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by Too_Old View Post

    In other words there is no such mandate.

    I just quote from the law you pointed me to:


    (1) A fire protection district may merge with another fire protection district located within a reasonable proximity, on such terms and conditions as they agree upon, in the manner provided in this title.

    'May' indicate the possibility of something being done. Not a mandate.

    Is there any legal history in WA courts where auto-aid done via interlocal agreement was found to be in violation of state law ?

    You keep insinuating that there is something unlawful or improper about auto-aid. There is not.

    Your issue is a local tax gripe.
    ROFLMAO

    Have fun

    No mandate

    ROFLMAO

    If that said they shall merge, all FD's in State would be forced to merge into one Statewide FD

    ROFLMAO
    Last edited by Bigjohn24; 09-08-2018, 10:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X