Financial stability for Honolulu Fire Department

¶ … Honolulu Fire Department and the Next Ten Years

During this recession, fire departments across America have found themselves under unprecedented financial stress. In addition to the financial stress, traditional money stretching methods such as the employment of volunteer fire services has declined in importance and effectiveness for a number of reasons, including tax issues. To make matters worse, professional fire departments face the problems of increasing payrolls, sign-on bonuses to attract qualified help as well as training and equipment costs. In the opinion of this author, there is no silver bullet available. A mixed approach of various small solutions will have to be combined to take the Honolulu Fire Department through the next ten tumultuous years.

A cost-cutting strategy that has been used in New York, Los Angeles and other cities include shutting down fire houses on a daily basis. Fire Commissioner Lloyd Ayers of Philadelphia says "That strategy is going to be about what we in fire service call, brown outs (Cueller & Bloomquist, 2010)." While "brown outs" may solve money, death may result. For instance in Philadelphia, a young boy reportedly died when EMS personnel took nine and one half minutes to reach him due to brown outs (ibid). Recently, a mansion burned out of control due to delays in dispatching fire equipment in Bloomfield Township in Michigan (Laitner, 2010). Needless to say, this is not an ideal solution to the problems of funding shortages in fire departments. This author's recent check of Google found a number of similar cases documented.

Another option to deal with financial problems would be the outsourcing of services to private contractors and companies. This approach is not a new one. The city of San Diego has been providing Emergency Medical Services through a contractor since 1979 ("San diego fire-rescue,").

Other funding alternatives are being considered by departments nationwide, as documented in a study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Some of these funding alternatives include small fees for special services. Other fees include subscription charges for users in a given area and a greater reliance upon insurance payments. In addition, departments are defining what they consider to be basic services. These basic services include small house fires, while additional services can include fees for such interventions as EMS service response fees, hazardous materials incidents, putting out larger fires, standing by at events and the provision of various technical services. When individuals disregard warning signs and the actions require fire or EMS services intervention, the people who are rescued may be charged for the services. Examples can include getting caught in flash flood areas or violating water safety precautions. Increasingly, departments are charging individuals knowing that insurance policies frequently cover a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. Some are charging for everything either via subscription fees or via a charge for each additional service. Increasingly, these EMS services are becoming the bread and butter funding sources increasingly for fire departments (FEMA, 2010, p. 1-1).

These fees and the decisions that are made by city, local and county officials literally translate into life and death for the citizens of the affected areas. In addition, the question of who should pay is raised, raising basic questions of governance and equity. Should only the users of such services pay the burden of the services that they are provided with? Should the EMS and protection services be treated as we would insurance in which the fees that are charged are a function of the risks presented? Should these services be considered as being provided to those who are in need with the costs spread evenly across the whole society? Are "user charges" for such life-saving services immoral (ibid, p. 1-1)?