The City of Lacey’s decision will impact the most vulnerable citizens.
For those of you following the fight between Thurston Fire District #3 and the City of Lacey, you probably know that the city has decided to start their own emergency services entity for a couple of publicly announced reasons. The first reason is that they felt that items such as shutting down (or even cross staffing) the new ladder truck and staffing reductions instead of closure for the Willamette fire station was more in order than paying for service. And further, City Manager Greg Cuoio in affect told the paper that they wanted operational control and decision capabilities instead of just being a contract holder.
The focus for today is on the decision that the city of Lacey wanted a reduction of resources and response rather than an obligation to pay more. Ignoring the fact that the city was getting a sweet deal for fire and EMS (Emergency Medical Service) and never mind that county citizens were in effect subsidizing the city’s fire response. The city is adamant that they, in their professional opinion, don’t want the existing response and want reduced service. These demands are taken from the local paper since the fire department and in general the public, were never notified or made aware that this debate would be placed on the city council agenda due to the lack of public announcement and last minute agenda placement. In fact, there is no public discussion in all of 2008 in open city council chambers (per the minutes too).
So lets go with the city’s thought and see what it means to the fire and EMS customer in the city of Lacey. And since the impacts of this decision are so far reaching, lets limit the scope simply not to such things as impacts to fire insurance costs and availability, or legal liability, or increases in long term costs, but simply as immediate service impacts to the population of Lacey city residents.
In 2008, a study was done and now lives in the collections of the Department of Homeland Security’s, National Fire Academy, called “A growing and aging population and its impacts to EMS service delivery for the city of Lacey, WA.” What the report found was that the population of Lacey (and the country) is getting older and that this shift will immediately impact and increase demand for EMS service. Not only would demand increase but by 2019 the principle average age the 911 caller for EMS would cross over age 65 but keep getting older well past 2040.
National research found that people over 65 used EMS twice as frequently as the balance of the population, but once they hit 85, they called 911 three times as often. Remarkably, that number locally was found to be as high if not higher and considering the growing impacts of chronic disease (diabetes, arthritis, cardiac conditions), its expected that this disproportionate rate would increase even faster in the City of Lacey. Considering the expansion and concentration of retired housing in Lacey, you probably don’t need a study to see this one coming.
One critical question that the City of Lacey never answered before proceeding with its decision to start its own service was an understand or to have at least a plan in place of not only treating its citizens/patients 2012 but in the future. City Manager Cuoio re-affirmed this lack of planning to the newspaper and in the non-announced meeting. So if they think its expensive today, what about the future? How do you plan to pay for the service that is going to need to expand regardless of overall city growth? The end result is that cutting the amount of available resources for EMS not only increases response time but as other studies have shown, but that the increase in EMS response time and availability will have an increase in mortality and cost. This is the key to the argument behind the national staffing standards called NFPA 1710 and state law that address EMS response time.
The argument of cutting even fire suppression (down staffing station 35 or shutting down the ladder truck) and transferring resources to EMS response, simply adds to the problem. Not only should the concerned be addressed that much of the retirement housing is commercial multistory development (Woodlands, Panorama City, and growth in Willamette/station 35’s area), where a ladder truck is required. But that the specialized equipment carried on the ladder is critical to stem fire spread and to deal with increased flammable contents and possessions found in most modern, high density housing in places like Horizon Point, Jubilee, and future developments.
If you are not convinced of the risk to elderly (and children too) by the reduction of emergency medical and fire resources, then again look at the research that states that even though the older population groups represent the smaller segments of our total population, they are truly the most at risk. Follow this link and go to page 2, and then after reading justify why you want to reduce staffing if you we already lack sufficient resources and the city wants to significantly reduce them further? If you live in Jubilee, how could one justify having the fire station re-opened with only an aid car as the city initially wanted?
The message is that the city desperately needs to make informed decisions and to build a plan that guarantees the safety of those who are most vulnerable. Refusing to talk and blindly proposing to cut resources without consideration to those it will most impact is a political nightmare not worth visiting. As a citizen, you should be deeply concerned because if the city’s leadership general concepts in this area are wrong, they won’t have to pay the price, the public will.
Demand better leadership and decision making, call your city council or be willing to support change in November.
For those of you who want to know about NFPA 1710 please take a look at this You Tube video.
For those of you who want to know why it is absolutely critical to have a ladder truck on the scene soon than later, this explains all of the roof collapse potential with all of Lacey’s new construction.