| InterceptRadio.com Forums http://www.interceptradio.com/bbs/ |
|
| another fire authority maybe http://www.interceptradio.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2359 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | eriksdaddy [ Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | another fire authority maybe |
Kent and King County Fire District 37 are exploring forming a fire authority. |
|
| Author: | MTM [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: another fire authority maybe |
Very -- very -- OLD news. As far back as 1975 -- the idea was tossed out in front of the public. Along came Valley-Com and most of the reasons to form some new group or district -- just floated away. Where's the benefit to the public? How could it save money or time ?? And what would it cost, who would be the chief and where would the money come from. Not a good idea. Form a single Countywide district - with each existing FPD becoming a battalion. Great idea. |
|
| Author: | FireDawg89 [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: another fire authority maybe |
You will see more and more cities looking for ways to get rid of there Fire Department! They are too expensive to operate. City of Edmonds is looking to go Fire Authority, the Department is too expensive to operate and be able to pay for other city services. |
|
| Author: | MTM [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: another fire authority maybe |
If your'e correct -- and converting over to a Fire Authority is based on trying to save money -- the only way that it will work is to combine ALL of the FPD's -- in the entire County -- into one joint Fire Agency. You can call it what ever you want.. A County Fire Agency, Authority, Department or Distict. But to save the most money -- it would only work with only ONE Fire Authority per County. |
|
| Author: | B [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: another fire authority maybe |
Having one fire authority per county is not the ONLY way to save money. There have been a slew of consolidations in this region, probably all of which have saved money. As much money as one department per county? No, but any amount of saved money is a good thing. These things are complicated, and the more of them you're able to get, the better. Even if it's just baby steps -- it'll move things in the right direction. Besides, it's highly doubtful that in King County there will ever be just one fire authority. Seattle FD generally does not play well with others. Everybody else might get together, but I doubt it would include Seattle. I see it happening in Pierce County way before King. |
|
| Author: | MTM [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: another fire authority maybe |
While a "baby step" "start slow" approach may save some money by consolidation of two or more small Fire Districts or Departments into one Fire Authority, it is by far less cost effective. The "does not play well" part does NOT have to be a factor in King County having a single County Fire Agency rather than having 40 independent districts -- as there are now. Do not confuse a Single County Fire Protection Authority -- for a single County Fire Department. LA City Fire is not the LA County Fire Protection District -- that serves the entire un-incorporated county as well as about 40 of LA Countys 89 incorporated citys, by way of a contract for serve. Seattle FD and other local city Fire Departments would ( or should ) always remain outside of any County Fire Agency or Authority -- that would serve only the existing areas of King County now served by the some 40 County FPD's. Why would anyone try to fit Seatttle FD or Bellevue FD into a new super fire agency. It would not save money or lives. The joining of some 40 County FPD's into one County Fire Authority would work well -- and without all of the need to deal with others that "don't play well with each other". If not a sinlge Fire Protection Authority -- then a Regional approach would be the next best step. But nothing is going to work -- unless there is a mutual push from the taxpayers as well as the paid or under-paid fire fighters. And now might be a good time to try to save money. |
|
| Author: | FireDawg89 [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: another fire authority maybe |
L.A. City Fire also operates in several smaller cities that surround L.A. |
|
| Author: | MTM [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: another fire authority maybe |
LA City Fire has a new contract to serve the City of Santa Monica -- but I am un-aware of any other city or area that LA City Fire Dept provides serve to. I'll check and let you know. I think that Seattle FD provides service to King County FPD 5 (Firlands)-- a very very small area just north of the City Limits |
|
| Author: | FireDawg89 [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: another fire authority maybe |
That area was given up to Fire District 4 Shoreline awhile back. The reason they once had that area was when Seattle expanded the city limits north from 85th to 145th it took almost all of King County Fire District 5 except for a small area that Fire District 5 could not stay active, so Seattle Fire took over. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Copyright © 2013 Interceptradio.com |
|