Budget: Fire Department

Post by **Brad** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:16 am

Budget: Fire Department

In this thread I would like to discuss Fire Truck Staffing. I will be the first to tell you, I don't know jack about the issue, however I would like to think of positive ways to fix the issue.

Right now there is a big fight in the city. The Mayor wants 3 firefighters per truck and the Union wants 4.

Why is this such a black and white issue? Why does it have to be one or the other. Can some fire stations have 3 and some have 4? Have an every other station 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, ?

What about this, what if you grouped fire stations in groups of 10. I think there are about 50 fire stations in Omaha. You lower all the stations to 3 per truck but you have a "Support team" of 4 firefighters, that backs up those 10 stations. You are saving 6 per group and 30 total.

Not sure, just throwing out suggestions.

Thoughts?

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:58 pm

It's a safety issue. You can't do 2 in and 2 out with only 3 people to a truck. Even the smaller departments here in my area all run 4 to a truck.

IMO it's the correct and safe way to do things, and shouldn't be negotiable just because of budget issues. It makes about as much sense as wanting the police to switch to economy cars to save gas.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:23 pm

Bosco55David wrote:It's a safety issue. You can't do 2 in and 2 out with only 3 people to a truck. Even the smaller departments here in my area all run 4 to a truck.

IMO it's the correct and safe way to do things, and shouldn't be negotiable just because of budget issues. It makes about as much sense as wanting the police to switch to economy cars to save gas.

My understanding is some big studies tend to disagree with the necessity of 4 to a truck.

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:44 am

joeglow wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:It's a safety issue. You can't do 2 in and 2 out with only 3 people to a truck. Even the smaller departments here in my area all run 4 to a truck.

IMO it's the correct and safe way to do things, and shouldn't be negotiable just because of budget issues. It makes about as much sense as wanting the police to switch to economy cars to save gas.
My understanding is some big studies tend to disagree with the necessity of 4 to a truck.

I haven't seen any. The few I have seen lean the other way.

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:19 am

We could go back to this.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:It's a safety issue. You can't do 2 in and 2 out with only 3 people to a truck. Even the smaller departments here in my area all run 4 to a truck.

IMO it's the correct and safe way to do things, and shouldn't be negotiable just because of budget issues. It makes about as much sense as wanting the police to switch to economy cars to save gas.
My understanding is some big studies tend to disagree with the necessity of 4 to a truck.
I haven't seen any. The few I have seen lean the other way.

I am sure it is safer. However, we have to deal with the law of diminishing returns. I am betting having 20 to a truck would be safer than 4 to a truck. We don't do it because the added cost is not worth the much smaller benefit. Thus, the question is how much of a drop off do you get going from 4 to 3.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:58 pm

Hmm. Maybe we should look into putting 20 on a truck.

Midlands ambulance crews strain to help obese patients
By Michael O'Connor
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

OWH wrote:Four-hundred-, 600- and even 800-pound patients are presenting ambulance crews with some big challenges.

As obesity rates rise, paramedics in Nebraska and Iowa are faced with carrying more obese patients. In turn, paramedics find creative ways to move them, and some fire departments are looking to borrow or buy specialized equipment.

Lloyd Rupp, a battalion chief in the Omaha Fire Department, said his crews encounter a 400-pound-plus patient every several days. Five to 10 years ago, crews would run into such patients every couple of weeks.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:01 pm

DTO Luv wrote:Hmm. Maybe we should look into putting 20 on a truck.

Midlands ambulance crews strain to help obese patients
By Michael O'Connor
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

OWH wrote:Four-hundred-, 600- and even 800-pound patients are presenting ambulance crews with some big challenges.

As obesity rates rise, paramedics in Nebraska and Iowa are faced with carrying more obese patients. In turn, paramedics find creative ways to move them, and some fire departments are looking to borrow or buy specialized equipment.

Lloyd Rupp, a battalion chief in the Omaha Fire Department, said his crews encounter a 400-pound-plus patient every several days. Five to 10 years ago, crews would run into such patients every couple of weeks.

This story also made Drudge. Great national press. :roll:

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:31 pm

How about we at least draw straws... and 1 in 4 don't get a pension. Perhaps the 4th firefighter could be a non-union contractor to the city of Omaha. :)

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:35 pm

Here comes my non PC statement. 400+ pound patients should just be left to die anyways.

"911, what's your emergency?"

"I'm having a heart attack!!!"

"Sir, what is your weight?"

"650 lbs"

"Get bent"

I bet back problems for the EMT crews goes WAY down, costing less in insurance, and no special equipment needed, saving taxpayer money.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:40 pm

Unfortunately, that statement is too sensitive to the 'needs' of the EMT people. Let's raise their insurance premiums to match those of us in the private sector while you're at it.

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:41 pm

I don't disagree with that.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:59 pm

We should really look in to the plus size ambulances especially since I see this guy eating a shotgun real soon over his job and weight issues.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:18 pm

Anyone listening to KFAB right now? Tom Becka is scheduled to do a charitable event with the firefighters to raise money for the Salvation Army.
Well, Becka was describing an even that took place off the air. He was interviewing a representative from the Fire Union and said “everyone is making cuts. What cuts can the fire department make?” When they would not answer, Becka pushed harder. Apparently, this guy finally looked at Tom and simply said “we won’t jeopardize safety,” patted Tom on the back and walked away. Then, Becka shortly got a call disinviting him from helping them raise money for the Salvation Army.

THIS is the reason people HATE government and HATE unions even more.

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:29 pm

joeglow wrote:I am sure it is safer. However, we have to deal with the law of diminishing returns. I am betting having 20 to a truck would be safer than 4 to a truck. We don't do it because the added cost is not worth the much smaller benefit. Thus, the question is how much of a drop off do you get going from 4 to 3.

There is a real big difference between 4 and 20, obviously. 4 to a truck is basically the absolute minimum unless you want to start risking their safety.

Stargazer wrote:Unfortunately, that statement is too sensitive to the 'needs' of the EMT people. Let's raise their insurance premiums to match those of us in the private sector while you're at it.

Seeing as how OPD and OFD are already willing to take on half of the pension shortfall by cutting their benefits/paying more, I think they'll probably laugh in the face of anyone who suggests more cuts to their benefits/pay.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:51 pm

Bosco55David wrote:
There is a real big difference between 4 and 20, obviously. 4 to a truck is basically the absolute minimum unless you want to start risking their safety.

Council Bluffs has done 3 to a truck for a while and I don't think I have ever seen a story about anything happening to a firefighter there.

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:55 pm

I know of a response in Lakeland - between Omaha and Blair - where the EMT's were hefty and carrying a an 95 lb octogenarian down the back wooden stairs - landed on the ground because of their weight on the wood.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:13 am

DTO Luv wrote:We should really look in to the plus size ambulances especially since I see this guy eating a shotgun real soon over his job and weight issues.

Oooo, that was |expletive| up..

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:51 am

joeglow wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:
There is a real big difference between 4 and 20, obviously. 4 to a truck is basically the absolute minimum unless you want to start risking their safety.

Council Bluffs has done 3 to a truck for a while and I don't think I have ever seen a story about anything happening to a firefighter there.

Are you sure about that? I could have sworn that they ran 4 to a truck as well.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:33 am

Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:
There is a real big difference between 4 and 20, obviously. 4 to a truck is basically the absolute minimum unless you want to start risking their safety.

Council Bluffs has done 3 to a truck for a while and I don't think I have ever seen a story about anything happening to a firefighter there.
Are you sure about that? I could have sworn that they ran 4 to a truck as well.

That was the big issue here locally. Our Fire Chief was on the city council for Council Bluffs. People wanted to know why he supported 4 to a truck here, but 3 to a truck in Council Bluffs.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:38 am

COuld it be that CB is smaller and has less accidents?

Post by **Brad** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:38 am

joeglow wrote:That was the big issue here locally. Our Fire Chief was on the city council for Council Bluffs. People wanted to know why he supported 4 to a truck here, but 3 to a truck in Council Bluffs.

I think it was Omaha Union President, not Chief? Could be wrong.... I think it was the hooker game me a massage guy.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:26 pm

DTO Luv wrote:COuld it be that CB is smaller and has less accidents?

I am guessing they have the same number of fire houses compared to the population. It is not like fires burn hotter or bigger in Omaha.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:26 pm

Brad wrote:
joeglow wrote:That was the big issue here locally. Our Fire Chief was on the city council for Council Bluffs. People wanted to know why he supported 4 to a truck here, but 3 to a truck in Council Bluffs.
I think it was Omaha Union President, not Chief? Could be wrong.... I think it was the hooker game me a massage guy.

You are correct. Thanks!

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:27 am

joeglow wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:
There is a real big difference between 4 and 20, obviously. 4 to a truck is basically the absolute minimum unless you want to start risking their safety.

Council Bluffs has done 3 to a truck for a while and I don't think I have ever seen a story about anything happening to a firefighter there.
Are you sure about that? I could have sworn that they ran 4 to a truck as well.
That was the big issue here locally. Our Fire Chief was on the city council for Council Bluffs. People wanted to know why he supported 4 to a truck here, but 3 to a truck in Council Bluffs.

Looks like Council Bluffs made a stupid decision then. That doesn't mean Omaha should follow suit.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:28 am

Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:
There is a real big difference between 4 and 20, obviously. 4 to a truck is basically the absolute minimum unless you want to start risking their safety.

Council Bluffs has done 3 to a truck for a while and I don't think I have ever seen a story about anything happening to a firefighter there.
Are you sure about that? I could have sworn that they ran 4 to a truck as well.
That was the big issue here locally. Our Fire Chief was on the city council for Council Bluffs. People wanted to know why he supported 4 to a truck here, but 3 to a truck in Council Bluffs.
Looks like Council Bluffs made a stupid decision then. That doesn't mean Omaha should follow suit.

Right now, I see them saving a ton of money Omaha can't afford (we just found ANOTHER $7,000,000 budget shortfall) and having NO increased injuries, accidents, etc. Thus, it gets back to my issue with diminishing returns. If, as many would have you believe, this was damn near a life and death issue, why have we not seen a SINGLE issue in CB?

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:24 pm

joeglow wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:
There is a real big difference between 4 and 20, obviously. 4 to a truck is basically the absolute minimum unless you want to start risking their safety.

Council Bluffs has done 3 to a truck for a while and I don't think I have ever seen a story about anything happening to a firefighter there.
Are you sure about that? I could have sworn that they ran 4 to a truck as well.
That was the big issue here locally. Our Fire Chief was on the city council for Council Bluffs. People wanted to know why he supported 4 to a truck here, but 3 to a truck in Council Bluffs.
Looks like Council Bluffs made a stupid decision then. That doesn't mean Omaha should follow suit.
Right now, I see them saving a ton of money Omaha can't afford (we just found ANOTHER $7,000,000 budget shortfall) and having NO increased injuries, accidents, etc. Thus, it gets back to my issue with diminishing returns. If, as many would have you believe, this was darn near a life and death issue, why have we not seen a SINGLE issue in CB?

A couple things.

1) Even if we reduced the number of firefighters on a truck, we're still paying those firefighters their salary, they would just be spread out to other parts of the city. That would literally do nothing for the short term.

2) This sounds like a very recent thing that CB has done, so the fact that it hasn't come back to bite them in the |expletive| doesn't really mean much. Give it time.

3) Even if it doesn't come back and bite CB in the near future, that's still poor logic for demanding Omaha do the same. It would be like a friend of yours running across a busy street without looking. Sure, he might not have got run over (this time) but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for you to do the same thing.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:25 pm

Well, we got our cuts from Suttle today:

-Civilian's union does not support or donate to Suttle's campaign - 130 jobs cut.
-Police union does not support or donate to Suttle's campaign - police helicopter grounded and recruitment class delayed.
-Fire fighter's union supports Suttle and contributes $30,000 to Suttle's campaign - NO cuts.

thenewguy · Post by **thenewguy** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:31 pm

doesn't the OPD get some sort of kick back from CB for its use in pursuits, etc, that happen on this side of the river? Just a few days ago, it was circling over head one night with the spot light on the ground.

I think that's absolutely ridiculous.

I'm just curious how many people on this site alone voted for him.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:21 pm

joeglow wrote:Well, we got our cuts from Suttle today:

-Civilian's union does not support or donate to Suttle's campaign - 130 jobs cut.
-Police union does not support or donate to Suttle's campaign - police helicopter grounded and recruitment class delayed.
-Fire fighter's union supports Suttle and contributes $30,000 to Suttle's campaign - NO cuts.

What are the contractual obligations the city has to each of those groups in cutting staff? I would suspect there is some difference in procedure.

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:26 pm

thenewguy wrote:doesn't the OPD get some sort of kick back from CB for its use in pursuits, etc, that happen on this side of the river? Just a few days ago, it was circling over head one night with the spot light on the ground.

I think that's absolutely ridiculous.

I'm just curious how many people on this site alone voted for him.

They probably do get some kickback. I know some of the local city polices here pay a little to the Sheriffs Department for the use of their helicopter.

As much as I'd love to jump all over Suttle about this, I don't think he could have done much to OFD. Their latest recruit class put them at full staff I believe, and they don't really have any toys like the helicopter that can be suspended.

Still, he sucks and is a huge disaster as a mayor.

Post by **Brad** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:04 pm

TV Ad Takes Aim At Fire Union

http://www.ketv.com/news/20443808/detail.html

www.ketv.com wrote:OMAHA, Neb. -- There’s a new ad campaign urging the Omaha City Council to take the minimum staffing requirements for the Fire Department off the books.

The grassroots effort by the Omaha Alliance for the Public Sector is paying for the ads. The treasurer for the group, Dave Nabity, said it’s designed to get the council to look at budget cuts within the Fire Department.

“Whenever you suggest they should be more efficient, they just push the button that says, ‘Oh you don't care about the firefighters' safety,’” Nabity said.

The advertisement in part says, “Times are tough, but we’re getting through it by tightening our belts; everyone except the Omaha City Hall. Instead of standing up to the fire union, they plan to raise our taxes, cut 130 jobs and sacrifice police recruits.”

Post by **Brad** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:53 pm

Fire staffing rules repealed

http://www.omaha.com/article/20090825/NEWS01/908259975

Maggie O'Brien WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER wrote:The Omaha City Council voted today to repeal the Fire Department's minimum staffing ordinance.

The council was able to revoke the ordinance after Councilmen Chuck Sigerson and Garry Gernandt today decided to switch their votes.

The ordinance, passed in 2000, mandated the number of firefighters assigned to trucks — the most controversial aspect of the issue. It also mandated the number of fire engines, aerial trucks and medic units in operation, as well as the number of firefighters staffing administrative bureaus.

Similar language also exists in the fire union contract, so the city still would have to negotiate any staffing changes with the union.

Sigerson, a Republican, said in an interview with The World-Herald that public opinion swayed him.

Sigerson said he felt compelled to support abolition of the ordinance after he received more than 500 constituent e-mails and calls asking him to change his vote. "You know what they've all said?" Sigerson said. "‘Cut the Fire Department."

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:00 pm

I'm wondering if anyone has looked at the cost of sending a fire truck to EVERY rescue squad call no matter what. Surely the need for a truck could be better determined through the 911 call center.

I suppose they pay the four-man fire truck crews the same whether they are out on a call or not, but surely they could save on fuel, wear & tear, etc.

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:06 am

GetUrban wrote:I'm wondering if anyone has looked at the cost of sending a fire truck to EVERY rescue squad call no matter what. Surely the need for a truck could be better determined through the 911 call center.

I suppose they pay the four-man fire truck crews the same whether they are out on a call or not, but surely they could save on fuel, wear & tear, etc.

Interesting idea, but I think there are too many factors that would make it impossible.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:50 pm

Bosco55David wrote:
GetUrban wrote:I'm wondering if anyone has looked at the cost of sending a fire truck to EVERY rescue squad call no matter what. Surely the need for a truck could be better determined through the 911 call center.

I suppose they pay the four-man fire truck crews the same whether they are out on a call or not, but surely they could save on fuel, wear & tear, etc.
Interesting idea, but I think there are too many factors that would make it impossible.

Yeah, there are probably too many unknown factors to risk not having a truck on hand, with all of its equipment right there if needed.

Still it seems like a waste of resources when they send a truck with four guys and a rescue squad with two, for a heart attack, stroke, or other less severe medical emergency call at a residence. Better safe than sorry though.

But, I'm of the opinion they should keep staffing 4-firefighters per truck for fires. It just makes the most sense.

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:03 pm

GetUrban wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:
GetUrban wrote:I'm wondering if anyone has looked at the cost of sending a fire truck to EVERY rescue squad call no matter what. Surely the need for a truck could be better determined through the 911 call center.

I suppose they pay the four-man fire truck crews the same whether they are out on a call or not, but surely they could save on fuel, wear & tear, etc.
Interesting idea, but I think there are too many factors that would make it impossible.
Yeah, there are probably too many unknown factors to risk not having a truck on hand, with all of its equipment right there if needed.

Still it seems like a waste of resources when they send a truck with four guys and a rescue squad with two, for a heart attack, stroke, or other less severe medical emergency call at a residence. Better safe than sorry though.

But, I'm of the opinion they should keep staffing 4-firefighters per truck for fires. It just makes the most sense.

Very true. I have been told that the firetrucks, just by virtue of size, carry much more equipment than the ambulances and that is why they're sent to almost all the calls.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:53 am

GetUrban wrote:
But, I'm of the opinion they should keep staffing 4-firefighters per truck for fires. It just makes the most sense.

-I thank God people did not say that about the 5-6 to a truck they apparently used to staff many trucks with in the 1970's-1980's.

Post by **nebugeater** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 8:07 am

Serious question:

How many times does just one truck respond?

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:20 pm

joeglow wrote:
GetUrban wrote:
But, I'm of the opinion they should keep staffing 4-firefighters per truck for fires. It just makes the most sense.
-I thank God people did not say that about the 5-6 to a truck they apparently used to staff many trucks with in the 1970's-1980's.

Technology and advancements in technique have allowed them to get down to 4.