Emergency at the Fire Station
Condition of West side building has gone downhill for years
By Joey Berlin
Monday, December 24, 2007
A guided trip through Fire Station No. 2 makes the city’s preliminary effort to replace the west side fire facility seem like ... well, an emergency.
Ventilation and humidity problems are evident, with mold thriving in various locations. That problem was noticed after firefighters began coming down with staph infections. Leaks in the roof are prevalent and are patched three to five times a year. When it rains or snows, fire workers have to place pans inside the ceiling tiles to catch the water. One leak hovers right over an electronics panel, sometimes dripping water right next to it.
When ladder trucks are washed in the garage, uneven settling of concrete causes water to slide outward toward the walls, instead of to the center of the garage. As a result, shelves and equipment at the sides and corners get soaked. Fire Capt. Rick Peck calls the rusty, run-down training tower on the western side of the property “essentially useless.”
All these issues and more exist for a fire station that hasn’t yet extinguished the candles on its 29th birthday cake.
This year, the city asked Fire Chief Jack Taylor to analyze potential new locations for station 2. Taylor selected two city-owned sites and presented an analysis of each at the city commission work session on Dec. 12. However, the current location of station 2 provides the department with better response times than either of those proposed sites. Taylor said if he had to choose between either of the two new sites or rebuilding station 2 on its existing site, he would select the latter.
So far, potential location is all that has been discussed; there hasn’t been any talk yet of a timetable for replacing the facility, or how much it would cost.
“I feel good about the process we have in place,” Taylor said.
Longtime problems
Taylor said the station building was already showing signs of deterioration when he took the job in 2001, and the effort to do something about it has been an ongoing process since then.
At least one retired firefighter had problems with station 2 ever since it opened in April 1979.
“The station sucked from day one,” said Bill Renfro, a retired firefighter who logged more than 27 years with the department. “I hated it out there ... When I became a battalion chief, I was really, really happy that I didn’t have to go out there anymore.”
Renfro said the department had problems with the building sometime before 1992 or 1993, when he became a lieutenant.
“The furnace, you either freeze to death for a month or sweat for a month,” he said, “because they have to pay somebody to come out and change it over twice a year.”
He recalled one incident where a problem with the furnace caused the station to fill with carbon monoxide. Two firefighters went to the hospital, and the rest were moved temporarily to Fire Station No. 1.
Renfro said the new station would need exhaust tubes that hook onto the exhaust station of each fire vehicle so CO could be expelled from the building before the vehicles drive off, and when the trucks are shut down upon return. He said CO tests showed that firefighters were picking up carbon monoxide and taking it with them into other parts of the station.
“When they would just back a vehicle in coming off a run, wait until the air built back up, shut it off, there was more CO out there than what we were allowed to go into a building without an air pack on,” he said.
Peck, a 20-year veteran of the fire department, said station 2 was a good facility when he began serving, when the building was about eight years old.
Peck said that only half the station’s air system works because of a broken compressor. He estimates that the ventilation and mold have been an issue at the station for about five years. “We first noticed it when we were losing all these people to staph infections,” Peck said. “We changed a lot of our habits, the cleaning, and lay on plastic beds now ... We don’t have any towels whatsoever; we use paper towels for everything. So we’re staying ahead of it because we’re so disposable in our day-to-day living.”
Huge cracks in the hollow concrete of the driveway allow water to shoot up every time the wheels of a ladder truck run across the cracks. Space is an issue not just with the firefighters and their living and sleeping areas, but also with the garage, which isn’t big enough to accommodate the increasing sizes of modern ladder trucks.
“When you take pride in the department, and you’re trying to take care of a building like this that’s become so dilapidated, it kind of seems a little fruitless at times to keep striving to keep it clean,” said Reson Bradford, a firefighter with 11 years at the department.
“I think we’re more concerned out here with our health than anything, (with) the problems I’ve described to you with our air-handling system,” Peck added. “It’s much more of a chore to keep everything nice with the building itself.”
Designer, builder
There’s no national standard for how long a fire station should stay in service, and there don’t appear to have been any definite promises or forecasts made for how long the station would last.
Markowitz Builders earned the contract to construct the building for the city in September 1977 for a total cost of a little more than $581,000. Bill Whetzel, president of Markowitz Builders, didn’t return calls for this story.
“Markowitz Builders, I don’t have a problem with them so much,” Renfro said. “They have to go by whatever the architect figured out.”
Trevor Lewis, the retired architect who designed the building, said it was the first building he ever designed that was made entirely of reinforced concrete. He said that presented some unique challenges, as did the fact that he had no example to work off when designing the training tower.
“It was a small structure,” he said of the tower, “but it took a lot of design and time to do.”
Lewis didn’t design station 2 with any life span in mind for the facility. He said he was satisfied with the design at the time, but things change over time that he could not anticipate. He and his colleagues felt the concrete would be sufficient to keep the building up for awhile.
“We had structural engineers ... that said it would be there as long as they needed,” he said.
There are plenty of examples of fire stations lasting more than 28 years. Emporia’s fire headquarters is one; Fire Station No. 1 in the Civic Auditorium Building, with renovations, has stood since 1941.
The city of Wichita currently has 18 fire stations and is preparing to build three more. Six of its current stations have been rebuilt since 2003. Of the other 12, eight opened prior to 1979, including one station that dates from 1954 and five others that were built in the ’60s.
Solutions
The two potential sites Taylor selected and analyzed for the city commission earlier this month were a site west of Dryer Park and one at the Public Works building. Both new sites, Taylor told the commssion, could potentially have a negative effect on the fire department’s insurance rating. The fire department currently has a Class 4 rating from the Insurance Services Office on the ISO’s scale of one to 10, one being the best.
City Manager Matt Zimmerman had Taylor look at other potential sites because of the potential retail uses for station 2’s existing site.
“Do some other locations make just as much sense (for a new station)? Maybe they don’t,” Zimmerman said. “But it makes sense to take a look at it, and I think what we’ve found is that our response times will be slightly negatively impacted, and I think that’s something we have to take into account.
“But I think we’ve also eliminated a lot of other sites that would significantly, or even severely, negatively impact our response time, particularly onto the interstate.”
Zimmerman said, for example, that the city looked at the possibility of placing a new station in the vicinity of the Jones Aquatic Center. But a location so far out west would add at least a minute to response times.
“Plus, we know the 18th Avenue bridge is gonna be torn out in a year or two,” he said. “So how’s that going to start impacting things if we wanted to take a look at building a facility out there?”
Taylor himself hasn’t analyzed any other potential sites, saying he hasn’t received further direction to do so.
“You have to remember this is a long-term process,” Zimmerman said. “We have to figure out not only what do we want to do with this building, but where do we want to do it with this building.”
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on December 24, 2007 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
wow, sounds like a mess. i hope they get a better building this time and located where the fire dept thinks is the best spot
Posted by pizza (anonymous) on December 24, 2007 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For a building that is only 29 years old there is something odd here. It sounds like nobody wants to do any maintenance on the facility. Compressors can be repaired or replaced, cement can be replaced, heating and cooling systems can be repaired or replaced. Why hasn't this been done. Sounds like somebody just wants a new facility and is finding everything wrong with this one they can. Who is responsible for maintenance? What is to say that a new facility would receive any better care?
Posted by zeepmonk (anonymous) on December 25, 2007 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Has the roof ever been replaced? I know I wouldn't tear down my house because the roof leaked. If the patching doesn't get it you get a new roof installed. It's a flat roof that has probably more the out lived its life expectancy.
I wonder if they would take care of new building since they dont seem to have done any normal maintance to the current one.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on December 25, 2007 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I feel it's more like some investor(s) wants the corner to go with the Modine building more than them needing a new fire station.
The roof could be sealed if the base under the garage drained properly. The water gets under the cement slab/footings and heaves and shoves the floor and walls in the process. Once that is addressed, the roof could be sealed, leaks would be stopped, and a competent HVAC crew could address the heating and air system. All would most likely not be an issue if the lowest bid had not gotten the original construction.
Posted by admireed (anonymous) on December 25, 2007 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who designed and built this thing?
Posted by quarterback (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tax payers should be pissed about this issue.
I think many questions need to be answered before tax payers are forced to pay for another one. Whats next the courthouse needs to be replaced for bad construction.
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
or maybe the gazette article didn't cover all the issues, or cover the ones that were mentioned well...
Posted by create (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What's this all about? "Lewis didn’t design station 2 with any life span in mind for the facility." Wouldn't any architect worth his salt design a building to last longer than 30 years?
My house was built in 1892 and it still stands 115 years later. Good maintenance, not patch and pray, is the key and should be the same for city buildings too. When is the last time they put a new roof on that building? Sounds to me like they just want a new house.
Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ok, for all of you who aren't familiar with station 2, go look for yourselves. i 've taken a tour and they keep the place very clean for what they have to deal with. they have done constant maint on the facility and from what i understand, that type of building can't just be shored up or have fixes like you guys want done.
based on what this article says (doesn't sound like many of you read it thoroughly) about somebody being a first time designer for a building like this, he did a poor job. the local contractor was also low bid and had probably never done a building like this either. remember, they won't even return phone calls for the reporter.
please don't blame the fire department for any of this. i'm a fan of them having a nice sound structure to work from as it keeps the men and women happy that may some day save my life.
it would be nice to give them what they want or require. a nice clean, safe house just like all of you would appreciate living in. they have been patient with the process and have tried to live in (24 on 24 off) a building most of you wouldn't keep a dog in. oh, and go look at fire station 1. it's in a building that is how old??? it's way outdated and most of the new trucks don't even fit in it.
if any of you want to trade housing, let the fire department know.
Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i hate to put a "PS" on this, but....at what point do the repairs cost more than just building a new station?
Posted by Hillbilly (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am wondering who in Emporia is going to get the next big project from zimmerman, since this project has been exposed, as like everything else in emporia city government, and the county goverment, and the RDA is just as bad IT IS ALREADY a done deal, this is just another thing that has, or will be shoved PAST the people of emporia and the county, I bet that the plans are already done for the new station, the land has been secretly purchased from someone, and at triple the price, BUT zimmerman, and the city and county commissioners will show us all how great it will be and how THEY have patted themselves on their selves for the great job on this project.
Whats next??? maybe the new police chief will not like where the cop shop is and zimmerman and the fine folks of emporia will build a new police dept, How about the fire
dept in the civic building, I am sure that the fire chief has found problems with it too, hell, lets just completely rebuild emporia,. I am with a lot of you, FIX the damn problems and live with it, quit bitching about every little thing, and for you zimmerman, the city is BROKE,, that means you don't have any money, you cant even clean the snow off the streets, or even run a blade through town, because it costs to much to pay the employees. WAKE UP zimmerman, city and county commissioners and PUT a STOP to a new fire station, even if your new buddies want you to build it, maybe they are making a big buck with the project also???? hmmmmmmm I bet so.
TAYLOR, you are the fire chief,,, why have you not taken care of these problems before, you have been around their long enough that you should of had the problems taken care of when you seen the problems start, is that the way you take care of the fire trucks too? if so, maybe you need to step aside and find someone else who will watch over the buildings and equipment while also taking care of fires, remember if you don't take care of your garage it will fall down onto your car, just that simple
Posted by Hillbilly (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dhcc, sounds you have did your investigating on the fire dept, thank you very much. THE city is BROKE, they can do repairs on it until the city gets back on its feet, renfro said it had problems when it was build, yep sloppy work, build by folks who didn't have a clue, who was the city inspector at that time???.......or did he care, or was it built by locals who slapped it up and got a nice check. Maybe the city should try to save it as long as they can, remember. it takes tax money to build city and county buildings. I am Not blaming the fire dept, I am putting the blame on ALL of the fire chiefs for not trying to repair as the years have past, there is more to all of this fire station stuff than we see, somewhere someone has big $$$$$$ signs in their sight.
AND WHAT DOES THE COUNTY COMMISSION HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS small project, they dont have any money either
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You can think Steve Commons for alot of this. Much of this Chief Taylor relayed to him and that is where it stopped. He hates fireman after the whole lawsuit thing. The FD asked for lots of stuff. Our rescue tools barely worked, or sometimes not at all, lack of a thermal camera, etc. Much never got to the city commission thanks to Mr Commons. When I started Commons said they would repair and remodel or replace that station. As you can see that never happened. Mr. Zimmerman has stepped into an infastructure nightmare that the beloved Steve Commons created.
Yes, there are problems with the one down town. It was built when fire trucks were small. They are bigger now, and are only going to get bigger. Pumpers have to be special ordered to fit inside of those bay doors. There really should be a ladder truck stationed downtown to protect Emporia State, but due to space constraints there isn't one.
Fire station 2 has many problems. I dont care what happens, but If they do decide just to repair it, I hope they also add on to give the FD the space it needs to get all of the equipment that is outside moved inside. It also needs to accomadate for a city that is building that way, and have rooms added for more firefighters and equipment.
From reading these posts it is easy to see why nobody in public safety will come or remain at Emporia for any length of time.
Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why would the city neglect the fire dept anyway? they are a needed service. since the west side of town has more people and stores and they need bigger bays why shouldnt they have a bigger building? i would rather spend money on this than on new roads and a housing code that can be enforced using the existing laws.
Posted by wanderer (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As I recall, this is not the first time The Gazette has written about conditions at station 2. The firefighters have been trying to get more money to improve conditions there for a while. This well predates Zimmerman's tenure.
Posted by tmt (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Heard a story once that at one time not so long ago a little company wanted to come to town and purchase that land that station 2 currently occupies. Unfortunately the city said "Oh no, for no amount of money are we willing to sell. This fire station is perfect and despite your HUGE offer we will not sell". That poor company had to then purchase space diagonally from that location instead. boo.
The real tragedy is that if they would have just sold the damn land the city would have had money to build a new dept. I would have never thought that common sense could be as difficult as teaching rocket science. I thought that this was a lesson this town learned from the "sale of the fairgrounds". What does stations 2 have sentimental value also? Is that why when the opportunity for improvement originally presented itself it was rejected only to be sought later and at a much higher cost.
Posted by disgruntledcitizen (anonymous) on December 26, 2007 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As Emporian has already said, Much of the problems of this building outdate Mr. Zimmerman by a long time!!! Commons put this off and put this off until now it is a very real and important problem the city faces. The station is too small, THe trucks have to be parked behind and around other trucks which means that there has to be guys to move the trucks so others can go on a call, And since there are only a small number of people at station 2 sometimes this can be quite an ordeal which means longer response times to YOU people who complain HOUSE FIRES, HEART ATTACKS, CAR WRECKS, etc...
Also the buildings roof has to be fixed almost every year for leaks, and would cost almost as much as a new building to fix because of the way the structure was built. Yes the city did miss the boat when Walgreens wanted to buy this property, Beleive me when Chief Tayler and the rest of the firefighters heard about Walgreens wanting to buy it we were down at the comission meetings trying to get it to happen. There is nothing we can do about this now though.
Mr. Zimmerman is just coming to this city to fix the problems it already has and try to make sure these problems don't arise again in the future. He has a very tough job right now since Commons messed everything up and then just picked up and moved on. If you ask me he has done a very good job with what he has had to work with and this is another one of those things that has to be done to keep this city running to the great potential it has to be run. Just because things has been put off in the past and things have been kept hush hush or swept under the rug in the past doesn't mean we have to automatically think that that is what our new city comissioner is going to do. He is a very proactive comissioner, he will tell it like it is and not sugar coat or lie directly to your face like Commons would do. If you don't believe me take the time out of your busy day of writing on the gazette.com and complaining about things you have no idea about and go to a city comission meeting and see our government in action. Or write him an email and explain your concerns of the city, I guarantee he will take the time to address you. BUt please lets not just throw out accusations and whine about things before you even realize the extent of the problem or why things are being done!!!!!
Posted by rah (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whine, WHO is paying for it! Taxpayers and we pay our share in this town for sure. I would say that gives each and every taxpayer a right to there opinion! I would like to know why the maintenance hasnt been done on this building properly and I personally dont believe Commons should take the brunt of the blame. I beleive the City has a department for this, MAINTENANCE we all have to do it on our homes or they would be doing the same thing.The City has dropped the ball again and now lets just tear it down and start over to get what we want. I beleive there was some reported cases of staph in the schools should we tear them down and start over too? The schools deemed beyond repair and or on the verge of being condemed are still in operation heck look at the old Kansas ave. school still being used. Whos fault is this? Just another excuse on there part (CITY).
Posted by disgruntledcitizen (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maintenance on the building could have done a lot more to the building over the years, but that doesn't change the fact that it was built by an architect with no experience in in fire stations or change the fact that it was built way undersized for the way the city was going to grow over the years. There are 10 vehicles being stationed at this station, (8 inside. 2 outside), 4 of those vehicles are county vehicles not counting the ambulances which the county helps pay for. The county needs to be responsible for helping with the cost of the building as it stores their vehicles also. The building was was built for a maximum of 4 people and there are 6 people stationed there now and if the building would move west it might need to station more. So yes maintenance is an issue that needs to be addressed, but this building is far past being fixed with some maintenance.
Posted by rah (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
6 people 10 vehicles goes right back to not utilizeing cost and being efficient! I believe when it was built the fire equipment was not of the stature that it now is in size ect.... It was so ordered and paid for at our expense pretty expensive storage building now isnt it.
Posted by gwhitsitt (anonymous) on December 30, 2007 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To be fair, there is a real problem with the sub soil in this part of town. It sinks at an alarming rate (do you remember how your grocery cart would roll away from you at the old Dillon's West store ? ...the company regularly measured the sinking on the south side of the store and was recording 12+ inches of sink from the original building elevation). Any repairs to roof, foundation or walls made in the last 20 years would need to be a short term fix until it shifted again.
I wonder how the city would address this part of the problem if it's decided to rebuild on the existing site?
Posted by disgruntledcitizen (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The only reason there are ten vehicles at the station is because firefighters are asked to do so many jobs yet only get paid for one. There is a water rescue boat, two hazardous materials trailers, county trucks, city trucks, and ambulances.We have to be proficient and fully knowledgeable in all of them. and believe me aside from the haz mat trailers and the water rescue boat we use every vehicle we have daily!! Also I didn't realize that everyone was upset for paying taxes for their OWN public safety. I'll bet you sing a different tune about paying taxes for public safety when you have an emergency or a fire and the truck or ambulance breaks down on the way, because you didn't want to pay an extra half percent or extra mill levy to pay for it!!! Beleive me there are alot of other places to cut taxes from than public safety!!! Because when you or a loved one really needs our services the last thing you will be worried about is that extra 50 dollars a year you had to pay in taxes!!
Posted by rah (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is alot of responsibility that coms with the job. You did interview for it didnt you? I will go with yes so then you knew it when you accepted the job. I respect the job the firefighters/ paramedics do. I know break downs happen thats why there is 2 stations right. I believe we are still a small town living on a big town budget an no I dont want to pay the extra mill levy or half cent. Maintenance is a critical part of the service provided and I personally have seen the equipment at our local dealers more then once! I pay my share of that 50 and then some. Concerned taxpayer!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Because when you or a loved one really needs our services the last thing you will be worried about is that extra 50 dollars a year you had to pay in taxes!!"
Extra $50 for the fire department, $50 for the Police department, $50 for the sewer department, $50 for the water department. $50 for the streets and public works department, higher trash rates, $50 higher insurance, $50 more on tags and vehcile taxes, higher residential property taxes for both the city and county to squander on consultants that will tell them they are not taxing enough, higher medical premiums, higher dental premiums, higher gas prices, higher grocery bills because they are paying more on the before mentioned......................they all add up to mean our personal budgets are being over extended.
While I agree with you that there are many other department budgets that could be reduced before public safety budgets are cut, I don't appreciate your threatening in your face attitude and hope the fire department isn't relying on you to promote this campaign and be their representative.
The city/county government always quote public safety cuts as their primary targets for reductions knowing the public will step up and pay more to preserve and provide for those departments rather than go without or have reduced services. The same can be said about school taxes, most support additional taxes for schools thinking they are doing what is best for the kids even though the schools get over 60% of all the taxes already. Contrary to what most of the public has been led to believe, they don't lack for appropriate funding. Teachers could be paid much better than they currently are if the budgets weren't being wasted on big ticket items and excessive administrative expenses.
Do they still store the old out of service Fire trucks downtown? Didn't they build the Eastside garage on that building to store the original Ladder Truck? The lot is deep at Station#2, could they build on additional living quarters, parking garages to the back of the building(after correcting subsurface water flow problems)?
Posted by disgruntledcitizen (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All I'm saying is that all I ever read on here is how people are so sick of paying taxes and they keep rising, but prices on everything, everywhere are getting higher, which means in turn taxes are going to get higher. It seems ridiculous that when a small thing is gonna get cut from the budget like the funding for the city band or a position at the animal control office is gonna get cut, people come out of the woodwork to bring their reasons not to do it. Now when your hard working firefighters/emts are trying to get a new station, which doesn't have to be a state of the art station, people start complaining about tax money. We aren't asking for a 5 million dollar station here, just one we don't have to squuegee every day because the floors are unlevel and don't drain, or one we don't have to put all our kitchen bowls under ceiling tiles to catch rain water, or one that we don't have to move vehicles out of the way to go on a call, or a station without a mold problem so we aren't sick year round. Sorry if I seem too forward or in your face about it, but I am just passionate about the fire service and it seems like it is lacking a lot of city backing. It is funny how everyone thinks firefighters around here get paid 60 or 70 thousand a year and then you tell them what you really make and they laugh in your face and don't beleive you. I am not complaining about what we get paid because yes I did interview for the job and do know what it entails and I enjoy every minute of it, but it makes it a lot harder to do when the city doesn't back up its firefighters. Just my opinion, may not be the opinion of the whole department.
Posted by disgruntledcitizen (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just wanted to reiterate, so there isn't any confusion that I am speaking on my personal opinion and am not representing the city or the fire department, and no I am not the person who is promoting this, thank god because I see I already have confused some people that think I have a threatening attitude. These are just the way I feel about my job and the city I live in and pay taxes in. Everyone is intitiled to their opinion and I do respect all of the posters opinions in this article because it atleast shows that people are interested in the subject and where their money is going.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I appreciate your explanation and your opinion, I'm sure others do as well. Your attitude that came out on the Dec 26th post in the last paragraph, and on the post you made this morning where you more or less implied we needed to mind our own business is what struck me wrong. The exclamation points in both posts imply that you wrote both with attitude.
I have great respect for the job the fire department staff does and do care about your health and well being while at the station. My beef is not with you and your fellow staff, nor with any one department of the city or county in general. I'm quite sure there are some tax payers that have drip buckets because of their leaking roof, have water in their basements, and need more garage space but cannot afford to do anything about it due to high taxes and stretched budgets. We just cannot keep raising taxes to update with bigger, newer, better every year for all government run operations when the tax payer's wages are not climbing along matching inflation. Tax paying households within this county cannot be expected to go bankrupt to ensure that government operations continue to grow and prosper. We are being forced to do without in alot of cases and to get by with what we can afford to live within our means, it's time for the government to do the same. I personally would support eliminating some services, and allowing services such as ambulance and trash collection to be operated by private companies instead of being governmentally ran. If these two became privately run, the people who utilized either service would be paying for it instead of every taxpayer.
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neighbor,
You would still pay for the Ambulance Service. AMR gets millions in subsidies from Shawnee county each year. They low ball you on the contract for the first year, then 5-10 years down the road when your local agencies no longer have ambulances, the price goes sky high because of the initial start up costs that nobody wants to pay. Then they infact have a monoploy and you are stuck with them. Topeka FD wants to take back the EMS, but start up costs are too high. In many jurisdictions AMR stand for Ambulance Might Respond. Here is an article about the subsidies AMR recieves. http://www.cjonline.com/stories/082406/l...
$500,000/year and they want over 1 million. What is the county paying here? $100,000?
Your tax dollars will be funding an ambulance service whether it is public or private. Ambulance service is one of the biggest money makers this city has. Everything the ambulance service makes goes straight back into the general fund too.
Posted by old_soldier (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another thing private ambulance services (like AMR) are notorious for - closing up shop if they aren't making any money. Sometimes, with only a 24 hour notice. Remember Advantage Ambulance? I recall employees showing up for work and ...SURPRISE!
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds to me like the City of Topeka didn't want to get out of the ambulance service business to begin with, I suspect they stayed involved in the regulation and operation of those services to keep their money coming in. I'm talking about totally independent privately operated ambulance service, no governmental purse strings, the only involvement of the city would be ensuring that they are properly trained and certified to do business, for a fee to the city to be able to operate here. What you describe doesn't sound much different than what we have now, taxed for the service whether or not you use it, then when you take a backside bed ride with them you get a big bill for the actual service again. Your last paragraph says alot emporian, most all of the governmental services are money makers.
Posted by old_soldier (anonymous) on December 31, 2007 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are NO private ambulances providing 911 service that are not subsidized by a county government. AMR says "you can't for certain say we'll get 5,000 calls, so we want this much money (a subsidy) to keep the business afloat." What they make in fees provides the rest of their cash flow. Even the mom and pop service in a small north central Kansas county is subsidized $100,000 dollars a year by the county. This county has a population of around 6,000 people, and the ambulance service has a hard time staying above water as it is.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
911 calls go to EPD's dispatch, they in turn dispatch the Police officers, fire and rescue, or they transfer the call to the SO if it's an incident out in the county. What would keep them from dispatching out a contracted private ambulance service like they do wrecker services? If multiple companies offered ambulance services, they could be put on a rotation list like they used to do with wreckers. Individuals could choose which service to use in non-emergency incidents by calling the service directly. I'm getting tired of all of the subsidy welfare payments that are being paid out of the tax base and having people trying to make all of us think that it is necessary to survive. In business, either you sink or swim, there should be no guaranteed revenues coming from the government.
Posted by admireed (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We had private ambulance services on rotation once and it turned into a funeral home war
Posted by old_soldier (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Holy crap. I have been in EMS well over 20 years, and I remember funeral home wars, because that's who ran the ambulances way back. The first one on scene got the patient and the $$$. Ever see that bumper sticker that says "if you don't like my driving stay off the sidewalk?"
Neighbor - in Kansas, it is the county's job (by state statute) to provide emergency ambulance service-they can do this however with whomever they please. Of course the ambulance will be dispatched by a 911 center (IF that's in the contract). However, the ambulance service will have a contract with the county and NO OTHER service is allowed to come in until it's time for contract negotiations again. Also, emergency ambulance service is not a money maker, TRANSFERS from one hospital to another are. RIGHT NOW, ANY private ambulance can come to Lyon County and take all the TRANSFERS they want to - nothing can stop that. However, the fire department will still have ambulances, because to do EMERGENCY respose within the county, they will want a subsidy from the county.
I would LOVE to see the reaction when the county makes a stipulation to interested ambulance companies. "Pay us this amount per year, and maybe we'll call you if it's your turn to respond." Know what would happen? There would be hysterical laughter from the ambulance service management and they would say this. "You sign a contract with us for XX number of years, YOU pay us X amount of $$$$$$ in subsidy, and we keep all the profits that we bill patients for." Private ambulances are in the business for one reason only. PROFIT. When that profit is not what they expected, they will ask for a larger subsidy which will raise the mill levy (state statute allows for 3 mills to be taxed for ambulance service). If they don't get it...goodbye. That's just the way it is, and until another ambulance is found, you may be waiting a long time for help.
Ever see the movie Mother, Jugs and Speed? It's a comedy about ambulances back in the old days. Unfortunately, there's a lot of reality in it also. EMS (emergency MEDICAL service) or "ambulance service" has evolved from funeral homes and "others" to highly trained and educated people providing emergent lifesaving care. Emergent care gets to the injured or ill patient much quicker now days, and people's lives are being saved because of it.
I thinks it's obvious that I am AGAINST privately owned ambulance service. I have worked for military medical, hospital based EMS, county EMS and private EMS. I know the ins and outs of all of them having been in supervisory positions and frankly, I'll pay my mill levy and depend on the professional services of EMTs and Paramedics that don't have to worry about where they'll work when their contract dries up, don't receive lifesaving new technology because it will cut into profits, or leave ONE ambulance in service for a county of 40,000 while all the others are doing transfers to Kansas City or Wichita.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)