As the threat of more layoffs looms, two aldermen looked to save money by tackling a sacred cow, the city fire department.
In a directive introduced to the Board of Aldermen at Tuesday night’s meeting, Beaver Hills Aldermen Carl Goldfield and Moti Sandman called on the city to investigate ways the city can save money by rethinking the role of firefighters.
The order directs Chief Administrative Officer Rob Smuts to investigate several potential cost-saving measures: Reducing firefighting staff, using city vehicles to transport victims to the hospital, and charging medical insurers for medical services.
Their proposal comes at a tough budgetary time for the city. Two months after its fiscal year began, the city is still struggling to negotiate with unions on how to close a $5 million gap in its FY08-09 budget.
The city has said that more layoffs may be coming if the unions don’t agree to make concessions in areas such as medical benefits, pensions or pay raises.
Citing the “strong possibility” of such layoffs “in the very near future,” Sandman and Goldfield urged Smuts to whip up some numbers on the city’s second-largest department (not including the Board of Ed). The fire department has a $31 million line item in the FY08-09 budget; the police department rings in at about $37 million.
Only a small fraction of the work firemen do is suppressing fires, the aldermen noted. A total 85 percent of fire department resources go towards medical services, while only 15 percent goes towards fighting fires, the aldermen wrote, citing 2005 data. This is because firemen are the first responders to the scene of any 911 call, be it a heart attack, a homicide or building leaping with flames.
Untapped Revenue?
Looking for an untapped revenue stream, the aldermen zeroed in on the medical side. The fire department has two emergency response units (also called Advanced Life Saving, or ALS units, basically big ambulances). The units don’t charge for the medical treatment they give out, such as putting victims in a neck brace, or for transporting them to the hospital.
Revenue for those tasks goes to the American Medical Response, which operates ambulances and also treats people at the scene.
In each ambulance run, Sandman sees an opportunity lost: If the city transported those victims, it could earn roughly $800 to $900 a pop, he said. He estimated total untapped revenue at in the “tens of thousands” per year, combining transport with other medical services.
Smuts, who has separately been tackling these issues, said he recognized the potential revenue stream, but the bureaucracy required to start billing for those services would detract from the revenue. He hasn’t crunched the numbers on whether billing for those services would give the city a net benefit. He said he’d check into whether the billing could be done through AMR.
Pat Egan, the fire union’s president, welcomed the line of inquiry.
“If there is a revenue stream that we’re missing out on, we should take a look at it,” Egan said after the meeting. “Other municipalities have found a way to tap into that,” he said.
A Staff Reduction?
Egan wasn’t so eager about another direction aldermen were leaning — towards changing the firefighters’ minimum staffing requirement. A clause written into the firefighters’ labor contract requires the city to keep at least 73 firefighters on-duty per shift. The mayor conceded to the new requirement in 2006, during his gubernatorial run.
“We ask that the CAO look at the cost saving – if any – in removing or reducing the minimum staffing requirement,” the aldermen’s order read.
Changing that requirement would require changing the labor contract, which expires in 2011.
Egan warned against tinkering with the staffing pledge — a move that he said would threaten the lives of firefighters and residents alike.
“We’re talking about people’s lives here,” Egan said. “Firefighters who have families to go home to want to mitigate our chances of getting killed as much as possible, and that happens by having the proper manpower on scene.”
The last time the city tried to close a firehouse, residents were “up in arms,” Egan recalled. A strong resident and union lobby blocked the move when the city proposed shutting down the East Grand Avenue firehouse a few years ago.
“The citizens’ response was pretty quick, and pretty clear,” Egan recalled. They didn’t want their lives jeopardized. They didn’t want a price put on their heads.”
Egan also defended the minimum staffing requirement for two reasons: One, he said it merely reflected existing staffing levels on the force. And two, the clause came coupled with cost-cutting overtime agreement. In the same contract as they secured the minimum staffing requirement, firefighters agreed be paid regular wages, not higher overtime wages, for overtime work.
Sandman cautioned that he is not advocating any specific changes, yet . He’s just asking for information to be gathered so the city can make fiscally responsible decisions as it plans ahead for its next budget year.
“I’m not advocating cutting staff,” Sandman said. If Smuts comes back with a recommendation that would deplete staffing levels, Sandman said he wouldn’t be afraid to push for that change.
“I know it’s not going to be an easy sell,” however, Sandman said.
The aldermen’s proposal was largely based on an outside audit done in 2002 by the MMA Consulting Group, Inc., of Boston. The report gave two suggestions, both of which called for expanding the medical services provided by the fire department.
Aldermen gave Smuts 90 days to come back to them with a report. The report is to include the city’s options, including “the status quo, refashioning the department into a First Responder Department,” and “reducing the size of the department.”
Egan said he’d be open to discussing expanding firefighters’ medical role.
In the hallway outside the meeting, Smuts agreed to report back within 90 days. He’s already been thinking through how to reform the department: Click on the play arrow for an April video in which Smuts explains the topic.
Tuesday night he said the options the aldermen proposed are “definitely worth looking into,” though he could not comment on their feasibility. Smuts predicted that staff reduction would be likely if more revenue is not found.
“If we can’t figure out a way of getting additional revenues on the medical side, I would not be surprised if there is strong budgetary pressure” to cut the staffing side, Smuts said. Those cuts would likely not come until 2011, when the union contract is up.
In the meantime, Egan said he’s open to answering questions at an aldermanic hearing, which should happen in the next 30 days.
“Everybody has the right to ask a question,” said Egan, “and I certainly with be glad to give my answer.”