Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Different views, but same goal

There is a bit of a kerfuffle in the press this week between labor and management at Lincoln Fire & Rescue. To be clear, I'm management, so you'll be getting the management perspective here. If you want the labor perspective, it's posted here on the union's website. The issue surrounds the use of an "alternate response vehicle" (ARV) to respond to medical emergencies. I've blogged about this before, and think it's an approach worth trying, and in my view trying this  response profile carries minimal risk. Without rebutting the particulars of the union's claim here, I'd like to explain my viewpoint.

Like many cities in the United States, our fire apparatus are aging, and we are having difficulty replacing these rigs. This is the result of two factors. First, they are incredibly expensive. An engine costs $350,000 at the low end, and a half million is rather common. A ladder truck is well north of $750,000. Second, municipal governments all over the U.S. are clawing their way out of the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The City of Lincoln has already lost 10% of its civilian workforce, and recently we got hit with the news that we have a growing shortfall in the police/fire pension fund which needs to be addressed by a huge annual infusion of cash. There are a lot of needs out there competing for the City's tax revenue, and not a whole lot of enthusiasm for tax increases among our citizens these days.

As a result, I believe we have to look for the most efficient ways of operating. I'd like to get our fleet of fire apparatus into better shape and get on a regular replacement program, similar to what we've done at the police department, and with our ambulances. This can't happen overnight, but that's the goal we are shooting for. We've got one new engine on order, we hope to order a second later this year if revenue holds up, and in 2016 we have lease payments ending on seven engines acquired in 2006. We'd like to re-channel those payments into more apparatus replacement. If all goes well, this will be a tremendous improvement.

As we work on this process, part of management's desire is to reduce some of the wear-and-tear on the big rigs. Last year, we extinguished 502 actual fires. There are 18 front line fire apparatus staffed around the clock. We responded to 16,720 medical emergencies, and we staff 6 front line medic units.  You can do your own math. Many of those fires are minor, but some present immense threat. You've got to be prepared to handle these critical incidents, despite the low frequency. But you also have to acknowledge the reality of what you actually do on a daily basis. Overall, about 80% of our workload is medical emergencies. I'd like to think that we could have used something smaller for a good share of those medical emergencies, and that doing so might reduce operating costs somewhat, and extend the life of the engines and ladder trucks.

This is nothing new. Departments across the country are doing this, some for a long time. I wouldn't say it's commonplace, but neither is it a novelty. I don't think firefighters like these smaller vehicles as much as engines and trucks, for the most part. I can understand why. I suppose many police officers would like to have the big block V-8s back, too, rather than a six-cylinder Impala or Taurus. Nonetheless, I think you've got to consider alternatives, and that doing so increases the confidence in citizens and elected officials that you are willing try things and open to other ways of doing business. This, in turn, makes them more likely to listen to you when you describe your needs.

Last year, our inspection of Truck 8 revealed that it's ladder was out of specifications. The thickness of the aluminum had worn below tolerances. We removed this assembly, loaded it on a semi, and shipped it to the manufacturer in Ocala, Florida for repair. The out-of-spec section was replaced, and composite wear pads were installed to prevent the same problem from reoccurring. The fix cost $60,000, and the shipping was $8,000. Chief of the Logistics Division Kendall Warnock tells me that the primary source of the wear was simple vibration: as the ladder truck was driven, the sections of the ladder moved against one another slightly, wearing away the metal over time: hence, the installation of wear pads as a preventative measure.

This example is one of the reasons those of us in management are interested in reducing the driving of the big apparatus to many medical emergencies. Trucks and engines are expensive to buy, and costly to maintain. We could buy and equip an ARV for less than the cost of that repair to Truck 8's ladder. That ARV ought to last somewhere in the seven to ten year range. My sense is that we might be able to make good use of a few such vehicles, but time will tell. 

We may disagree on the best path, but ultimately labor and management want the same thing: good personnel, good training, good equipment and facilities; adequate to safely perform the job at hand, and in the quantity that our citizens are willing to support with their tax dollars. 

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

If this is the first time you heard about the pension under-funding you are way behind the curve. The fund has been under-funded a long time. For many years the city refused to contribute the annual actuarial recommended amount. Now it is questionable whether pension members will see any benefits 20 years from now.

Tom Casady said...

7:08,

No, this is not the first time. The fund has been underfunded for several years, in the wake of the 2008 stock market crash. The most recent actuarial report, however, showed an even bigger gap, and a critical need for the City to ramp up its contribution. I'm not in the police/fire pension plan (wish I was!), but if I were, I would be interested in making sure the City is operating efficiently, making good use of tax revenue, and following the actuary's recommendations--because these things would effect my pension fund.

Mike James said...

Keep up the good work Director Casady, you have this taxpayers support.

Anonymous said...

Minor things that may have changed since I left the workforce: using fire engines for a trip to the grocery store, and for safety inspections in the workplace. I've always been puzzled by both of these.

Anonymous said...

Like you Director, I am no firefighting expert and I'm sure you get your share of 'what if' suggestions, but it seems to me you could send the small vehicle to the call and leave one person at the fire house with the big truck. If the big truck was needed, then it could be driven to the scene without the entire crew having to return to the firehouse.

Anonymous said...

So now you are going to hold the pension funding over the head of the police and fire? Think about this one then, the city gets sued because someone dies from your little experiment and the payout could have funded the pension and bought a bunch of new fire trucks. Seems to me you are playing with fire (pun intended.)

Anonymous said...

Finally, a blog post some people might get fired up about!

Anonymous said...

While I admire and respect the paid firefighters I have to disagree with them. Every week numerous rescue calls throughout the state are handled by EMTs and Firefighters without running an engine on each call. Numerous volunteer agencies run a utility vehicle or simply an ambulance on the call and 95% of those calls are handled without any problems. If problems do arise (and they do occasionally) a re-page for more help is done. There is a great article in the last Fire and Rescue Magazine on how several Canadian departments are using and thoroughly appreciating the smaller response vehicle. As far as no bolt cutter on the vehicle, why didn't the firefighters assigned look through the equipment and preplan for such a need?

Anonymous said...

Might as well load the pickup full of what could be needed like ladders, bolt cutters, saws and other things and just leave the trucks in the barn unless it is an actual reported fire. That will be great for that 95% of the time 7:53 talks of. When that other 5% comes up! just stand there and watch all he'll break loose while waiting to the fire truck to show up. That way, there will be much less wear and tear on the fire truck and it won't have to be replaced as often since you won't be able to anyway because of the lawsuits from the 5% of calls resulting in lawsuits.

I know, that is sounding ridiculous, but I would rather pay higher taxes to run the correct equipment to each call even if it is not needed than to have to pay higher taxes because the City didn't send the right equipment and now has to pay for a wrongful death lawsuit.

Let's just send the cops to calls without guns. They rarely have to use them. Let them call for a gun to be sent out if they need one.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Funny how a lot of the pro firefighter comments don't get posted.

Tom Casady said...

Readers,

There have been a lot of inflammatory comments that I have not posted. It's not my habit to moderate comments this heavily , but I'm trying to keep this particular conversation a bit more rational and a bit less ( shall we say) "provocative"? They flow in different directions, by the way. There will be plenty of opportunities in the future--as in the past--to flame and ote on my blog, but for now, I'd like to take the high road on this discourse.

Alex Andersen said...

I think that the use of this vehicle is a good idea. About 2-3 weeks ago I was walkibg on the new trail that is in Union Plaza and runs North towards the Devaney Center. Along the trail there was a call for paranedics and this vehicle was dispatched. Had a full rig tried to drive down the trail like the ARV, it would have been an even larger hazard to other trail goers.
At the Gold's building bus stop, there are regular medical calls every week, and with a busy spot with up to 10 buses trying to pull in and out and construction, a full rig also just adds to the chaios. I was there when there was one, and luckily the ARV was sent. This time traffic wasn't as impeded as it has been in the past. Two times in a two week period I saw this vehicle on the scene of a emergency, and both times it was much better than a big rig. Yes, there are some operational issues that need to be addressed, but that is normal anytime you begin a new way of response. One possible solution to the ladder problem is possibly equiping the vehicle with one of thos Gorilla Ladders, which adjust size easily and are easily stored in a small place but have a tall reach.
This is a good idea and I think it should continue to be refined, as it doesn't just have positive financial effects. Like you said previously, "The checkbook isn't unlimited."

Nate said...

Mr. Casady,

As a former Lincoln resident, I've supported and I am still watching how the ARVs turn out. I think they have numerous possible advantages in safety/navigating traffic, response time, cost savings, etc. That's assuming 911 is consistently able to provide enough detail to determine if the ARV is appropriate, of course...

One thing I found odd was the spartan load-out of the ARVs as pictured in the LJS, at least compared to other similar vehicles I've seen in Wichita and other places. Are ARV configurations currently regulated by your accreditation agency? Have you or LFR compared what you're trying to do with other places?

Wichia: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4075/4808928803_0237bf9606_z.jpg

Spokane (included because I found this concept interesting): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkRjAUoWNUc

While Wichita's units seem to be grass/light pumpers, could a bit more "robust" ARV help qualm the concerns of the union?

Garrick Brim (ggbrim@atlantaga.gov) said...

Thank you Mr. Casady for your insight. This is something we have discussed in our Assessment and Planning Section for Atlanta Fire & Rescue.