Today's Journal article, Larger fire stations considered, brings us nearly full circle in the continuing EMS/fire station relocation saga. (My emphasis throughout.)

"The city should build extra space into its new fire stations in case future demands require additional staff and vehicles, fire and city officials say."

I would have substituted the word WHEN instead of in case in that opening sentence. Last year, when moving the fire stations was discussed, the handwriting already was on the wall that three stations would not be adequate for long.

When I met with Fire Chief Dahms early in 2007 to discuss the whole relocation idea, he indicated the reason he supported the move to Calhoun Road at all was so Brookfield could make-do with their smaller 3 station fleet. Increasing travel time efficiency* across town would stretch resources. Station #3, for example (Mooreland Rd.), already responds to calls from across town in station #2 is on a call. (*Sorry, I realized this word was not included in the original post.)

I think Chief Dahms shared my opinion that we really needed a 4th station, but because of spending caps, he did not believe the payroll increase would be approved. (He also agreed that it was a mistake to have built the centralized station #1--Safety Building. We should have had 4 stations in the 4 corners of Brookfield instead.)

Dahms indicated that when more service was needed, the 3 in a row station configuration would make placement for adding that 4th station difficult. There was no dispute that the east side of Brookfield, be it north side or south side would receive inferior response times from the relocated stations. Back to the article:

"The floor plans call for adding a third apparatus bay and more living space so the stations could add a second ambulance and three paramedics to staff it."

Chief Dahms and I discussed adding an additional EMS only station on the north side, be it at the Lilly location or a new location possibly at Mitchel Park or the Recycling Center. He explained that 3 paramedics, however, were not really adequate to respond to all emergencies--that was why the fire truck and ambulance always go out together. Dahms told me about some experimental hybrid quasi fire engine/ambulance vehicles that have been used in other areas. This would save some money in that they are not as expensive as full fire trucks, and that for most EMS calls they are all that are needed. I think they were staffed with 4 persons.

"City and fire leaders said this week there are no plans to increase Fire Department staffing beyond the existing five-person crews. Staffing would increase only if an increased volume of calls for emergency medical services required it."

Since the study was based on night-time calls, which are less volume than day-time calls, it is not hard to see that call volume will be increasing. I see the need to add more staff in the not so distant future. Trouble is, with the Calhoun alignment, we now have made equitable response times to the east side of Brookfield a thing of the past. That is, unless the aldermen would reverse their decision to make the move. (Hey, Jim Sensenbrenner is trying to reverse the ethanol momentum!)

Remember, the most compelling reason for relocating the fire stations was: 

A desire to control personnel costs was a major reason that aldermen voted in April 2007 to not build a fourth fire station to solve excessive 911 response times on the city's west side, where there are no fire stations.

So why would the city build bigger stations to possibly increase personnel to levels about the same as staffing a fourth station? ...

I say, that is a very good question!  We will need a 4th station, or at the very least an additional EMS ambulance and crew. The south side station is probably too far along to do anything about that mistake, but on the north side? Can we rethink this?

Past related posts:

A CREATIVE EMS solution the Task Force did not consider   (Why don't we add another EMS only station?)

Faulty logic: Since when does time spent in committee equal a valid plan? 

East High School will NOT have 4 min. response time if we relocate station #2

The HRPS report: All 5 vote Yes, not all enthusiastic about the recommendation  

Whose Master Plan are we following anyway? 

Links:
Update: "Creepy" picture Billy Ray cannot deny

Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna

Update:  I heard the Plan Commission meeting was well attended. If I hear anything more, I will post the info.

Don't forget, tomorrow the Plan Commission and Park and Rec. hold a joint meeting to discuss turning Fairview North Park on the northwest corner of Capitol and Calhoun into Brookfield's #2 fire station.  "No action will be taken at Monday's meeting, which is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. at City Hall, 2000 N. Calhoun Road. The regular Plan Commission meeting will follow the joint meeting."

It seems whether we like it or not, the fire stations are being moved, and Calhoun is being widened. I still can't help but believe we will regret this one day when the need for another fire/EMS station cannot be ignored any longer.

Some residents in the 2nd district, where Fairview North Park is located, are of course upset that their park land looks like it is going to be taken for the fire station. One commenter on Fairly Conservative suggested VK donate some of Capitol Heights for the fire station and that the city leave the parks alone! Novel idea, but I don't think it will fly.

If this is an issue that concerns you, do attend the meeting and contact your aldermen.

 

Other meetings of interest: 

District 7 and Concerned Calhoun Community meetings April 9th and 10th 

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna

 

 

 

 

Town of Brookfield supervisors on Monday made another step toward cooperation with the City of Brookfield, as far as their fire station goes.

If you remember, the Town made an offer to the city: We offer our services to you.
The city made an offer to the Town: You pay us $875,000 next year, and we will man your station.
Now the Town said, send us a formal contract.

The situation is looking much more hopeful than it was a few months ago.

Aldermen Franz and Balzer were very reluctant to give their approval to the EMS/Fire Station Task Force’s recommendation at the HRPS meeting. Neither one of them wanted to move station #3 if cooperation with the Town could be achieved. The mood at that meeting was that cooperation would not take place, but now we see a glimmer of hope that it will.

But, here is the puzzler: Mayor Speaker still thinks the Moorland station should be moved 1 mile closer to the Town of Brookfield’s fire station!

What? His reasoning was that there were no guarantees that the Town would continue to allow the city to use its fire station, the JS Online article reported.

Well, that is true. We don’t know if the Town will continue to allow us to man and use their station.

BUT, it is equally true, that moving station #3 1 mile further west toward the Town’s fire station MAKES NO SENSE.

Station #3 is already in an equitable position to both the southeast side and southwest side. Moving that station 1 mile to the west will forever cause the southeast side to have much longer response times than the west side. Factor in the additional aid and proximity from the Town station, and to me, that move cannot be justified.

I would hope in light of this potential cooperation, the aldermen would decide to postpone the vote on the EMS/Fire Station Task Force recommendation.

If we ever do add that additional EMS station in the northwest corner, then our entire city would have fairly even emergency response times. Moving the stations all in a row, will never allow us that equitable distribution.

UPDATE: I missed this important detail, but a reader did not. The City only gave the Town the formal contract offer, but they only gave the Town DAYS TO ACCEPT IT.

The reader had this to say: I think the fact that Speaker sends a contract to the Town and gives them
only TEN days to sign it, and there will be no further discussion unless they sign it, just shows the absolute arrogance of Speaker... They don't really expect the Town to be able to sign in TEN days, so they can pretend that they were in fact willing to discuss the matter when the Town doesn't sign.

Time will tell what comes of the formal contract and 10 day deadline.

Robert Flessas', City Taxpayers won't be laughing now posting gives further insight into this Check: Check-mate negotiating between Town and City.






Is that your final offer?
Fire station #3 already IS in the right place!
The HRPS report: All 5 vote Yes, not all enthusiastic about the recommendation


WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield>Votenoapril3.com