Without Dialogue, Palos Fire Not Jumping to Join Orland
Residents of the fire district go to the polls next month for a referendum that is intended to solve their financial woes and negate any possible need for consolidation.
Photos
The possibility of merging fire protection districts may be floating in Orland, but it's drowning in Palos.
“I don’t see the sense in that,” Palos Fire Protection District president Kevin McCurrie said at Tuesday’s board meeting, noting that he, his chief and his fellow commissioners learned of the idea like most people—through reporters.
In January, Orland Fire Protection District president James Hickey issued a press release proposing the idea of merging or contracting services with Palos. He then appointed a task force to explore the possibility, but didn’t include anyone from Palos.
As of Tuesday night, no one from the Orland Fire board had even reached out to Palos about the idea, McCurrie said.
“It’s a long and arduous process to do a consolidation with any department,” Palos Fire Chief Steve Carr said, and one that may have been approached backwards.
He explained: “It’s something we, as chiefs, would sit down and discuss for months at a time, (asking) is it really in the interest of taxpayers? Is it really going to improve service? Or will it deliver the same service at a lesser cost?”
Then, Carr continued, with the support of both boards, the issue would go to public hearings. With the support of the people, it would go to the media. And finally—it would be put to mass vote.
Residents of Palos Park and portions of Palos Heights, Palos Township and Orland Park will go to the polls next month to decide another issue.
The district is asking taxpayers for an additional $1.9 million—the equivalent of $1.64 a week for every $100,000 of assessed value—to prevent insolvency. According to a recent audit conducted by Mulcahy, Pauritsch, Salvador and Co., Palos Fire will be penniless by April 2014 without new sources of revenue.
As of Jan. 1, 2012, the district has cut one to two men per shift and closes Station 2, nearest to Carl Sandburg High School, several days a week. Carr estimated that response times have increased on average by two to three minutes.
Hickey said his rationale for consolidation was based partially on a concern with fire service at the school.
But even if Palos’ upcoming referendum passes, the district will still have a lower taxing rate than Orland, and with finances and service in order, there’s just no reason to join, McCurrie said.
Consolidating resources wouldn’t necessarily make governing easier. According to Thomas Courtney, an attorney for Palos Fire, the single department created would likely retain two collective bargaining agreements. It depends some on pending legislation in Springfield, but as it stands, he said, the two districts would be tasked with putting a single tax rate before everyone to agree on.
Courtney said Orland Fire trustees may be surprised to know that Palos commissioners are appointed, not elected, and he dubbed the premature announcement of a possible merger an act of “loose lips.”
"Bigger is not better," said Maria Rogers, a resident of Palos Park and the curator of its historical society, who took the podium to denounce the entire prospect.
The idea of merger has its detractors in Orland as well, including board secretary Blair Rhode, who recently said, “I don’t particularly think taking on another district’s problems is wise.”
For More on This Topic Read:
- Cuts Loom As Palos Fire District Approves Ballot Referendum, Levy
- Skepticism and Doubt About Merging Orland and Palos Fire Districts
- Palos, Orland Fire Merger Floated By Board President
- New Year Means New Cuts For Palos Fire District
- Palos Fire In the Running For a New Kitchen and They Need Your Votes
In This article
-
Orland Fire Protection District Firehouse One and Administration Center
9788 W 151st St, Orland Park, IL -
-
-
Carl Sandburg High School
13300 S la Grange Rd, Orland Park, IL -
-
John Fotopoulos
7:40 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
This an embarrassment to the Orland residents that Mr. Hickey would make such comments without the input of Palos Fire. I wonder if he thought this was some sort of short sale opportunity. Why would anyone want to be taxed at Orland Fire rates?
Dan
8:44 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Hopefully this wasn't the only issue to be discussed, espically with Station 2 closed several days per week. How often is Station 1 closed? Or are the residents of the western part of the district bearing the entire cost of the financial problems!
Dan Lambert
9:20 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The closings rotate between both Station 1 and 2.
Harold Peters
9:54 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Isn't anyone going to address the issue about WHY they're so cash strapped? I don't understand what Commissioners and Trustees do, but isn't there someone over there that plans the budget according to the estimated taxes received each year? Being a "Fire Protection District" means they are funded by the tax payer, right? So why, all of the sudden are they broke? Why didn't someone see it coming in time? There's no reason, in this community, for the fire department to be rendered "penniless" I think the real issue, as we have seen mentioned before, is over spending/hiring, and the union contract they were granted. I'm not saying they're not deserving, it just seems a bit high for the amount of work they do. How does it compare to other departments? How much do they make in overtime? Isn't that a huge issue in Orland? I would also like to see an official study about response time now that station 2 is closed. I still think there's a bit of posturing going on. The Chief doesn't strike me as humble, or trustworthy. There's more to this story..
Bob
12:56 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Harold, check out the other threads on this for better background, especially "NEW CUTS...." In a nutshell, the district was in good financial condition until about 2008 when it gave a HUGE jump in salary to staff (increases ranging from an immediate 25-28% salary boost). This was passed by 3 of the 5 Board members, including President McCurrie. They also hired six new full time staff who were partially funded (25%) from a Federal grant. McCurrie and the "Terrible Two" knew the district couldn't afford this level of increase, but they were using the strategy of creating a crisis to force the taxpayers in the district to approve a tax increase. I personally think that's despicable to put our families at risk for such greed, but apparently he doesn't.
Mc Currie shockingly went on record at the last televised meeting as saying that he wanted much MORE than the 45% ($1.9 million per year) tax increase on the March ballot, and that he planned on increasing spending more than the CPI so that another tax rate increase would be "needed" in about 5 years.
This is a real McCurrie led mess. Colleen Schumann, Palos Twp supervisor who nominated him, has to step up here and get this thing back under control. Curiously, she just had them re-appointed last year after they caused the dangerous mess.
Jesse Marx
4:47 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Bob,
The arbitrator's report from May 2011, which you quote for your statistics, does raise some very important questions. We're looking into these and preparing an analysis of our own. The 25 percent increase for "unit members" during fiscal year 2008/2009, if true, is startling.
But I wanted to point out in the meantime that the arbitrator, while explaining that spending has far outpaced revenue, concludes that section of his report by saying, "My point is most emphatically not that the District made mistakes or bad choices in any of its expenditure decisions. On the contrary, I am certain that the District is better able to serve the needs of the District’s residents now than in 2008."
His focus, as he goes on to explain, is a matter of district spending in relation to wages. In fact, he adds: "The District’s finances, particularly its estimated FY2011 ending fund balance, indicate that the District can afford to fund either of the (district's or union's) wage offers in the record (UX 11)." It should also be noted that the arbitrator sided with the union on giving higher wages after looking at the financial evidence.
This is one man's opinion, of course, but his whole opinion should be presented. Again, my editors are preparing to delve into the issue further, so any other concerns you have we'd love to hear them.
Jesse Marx
4:52 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Also in the interest of fairness, here's what McCurrie said on the record during the meeting, after Chief Carr spoke of the equipment purchases he has been putting off and needs to make within the next 5 to 8 years:
"By that date (2020-2021) with the tax caps and our rate reducing every year, we would be going for another referendum--that's in place, with limiting rates, to ask the public when you need the funding. Our limiting rate has been reduced over the years down to a point where, quite frankly, in my opinion, we should have went for it four, five years ago. So with these equipment purchases and the district's better financial status, we've got to ask the public again for another tax referendum. That's the way the system's set up, and that's what we're gonna have to do. If we're on the board, fine. If not, whoever else is on the board at that time is going to have to ask that question
Bob
11:17 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Jesse, thanks for your response, but I'd like you're interpretation of the remarks you quoted. First, I'm sure you're aware of the "weasel words" labor arbitrators need to use. They virtually NEVER give blame fro irresponsible spending.
There's seemed to be only one of two logical conclusions that the arbitrator could make; that the district WAS in fact unable to give raises because of it's financial condition, or that the district was didn't have an incorrectable financial deficit problem.
If you read on the report, it essentially said, as I understand it, that the union should be granted a raise because the financial problems of the district were not the "fault" of the union, but the result of questionable spending choices made by the board.
There are subjective conclusions throughout the report which I read, but often the findings of the arbitrator were contradictory.
That's why I concentrated on the objective financial data provided by the arbitrator, that one would assume are correct.
It should also be noted that the statement "On the contrary, I am certain that the District is better able to serve the needs of the District’s residents now than in 2008." is purely subjective on the part of the arbitrator, and has no supportable basis in fact other than the assumption that because more money is spent that the district is any safer or more responsive, than prior to 2008.
Bob
11:25 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Jesse, please do a little research into PTELL (Property tax extensions Limitaion Law) and you'l find that the PREsident's statement was deceptive at best, and dishonest at its worst.
The tax cap law provides for an increase in revenues not less than the CPI, plus taxes from new construction, on an annual basis. As property values increase faster than inflation, the rate decreases to reflect the higher revenue. The tax rate is merely set to properly quantify the increased revenues relative to tax valuation of the property in the district. The revenue increases are "automatic" without referendum. McCurries postion appears to be that he wants a tax rate that not only allows for the natural revenue growth under PTELL, but wants to far EXCEED the CPI plus new construction funding increases. No case has been made that normal operating expenses should increase more than CPI, unless of course, Mr McCurrie plans to give away raises far higher than CPI top what is already one of the highest paid dsitricts in the area.
Bob
11:29 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Jesse, I was at the meeting and I don't recall the President stating the dates you put in parentheses. The five to eight years I DO remember being mentioned by Chief Carr would translate for Mr McCurrie pushing to increase taxes bewteen 2017 and 2020. From where did you get the 2020-2021 date?
Laughing Carol
11:23 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Mr. Hickey spoke far too soon, a move that was extremely discourteous and disrespectful to our neighbors. (Maybe he believes beggars can't be choosers. Ugh--what a bad attitude!) Why do some on the boards of local taxing districts think they can behave so badly with impunity? It's upsetting to see that being associated with Orland Park and/or Orland Township gives these small-potatoes public officials a swelled head, but it seems to be going around. (Another example: certain members of the School Dist. 135 board.)
jim kline
12:06 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Palos Fire budget is $5.6 million per year, divided among 27 firefighters, the chief, and the admin asst. 80% goes for compensation.Part-timers have all been terminated. Whp thinks adding $1.9 million per year to their revenue is going to solve the problem?
Jim
Bob
1:01 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
interesting politics here. One Board member (Guinn) woke up and opposed the referendum last year. McCurrie had an interesting political solution to the problem of idea "diversity" on the Board. First, he had Guinn censured. Then he had his cronies on the Board reduce the Board from five members to three, but once it got down to three, he increased the number back to five again, as it is now. this guy has to go before anyone in the district even considers voting for a rate increase. You just can't trust him!
Bob
11:38 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Essentially, what the public needs to know regarding district plans is the following:
1) What is the correct staffing for the department? Normal "rules of thumb" are fine (one FF per 1,000 residents), but actual operational needs require justification. For example, about 67% of all calls are for ambulance service. It is not unreasonable based upon this service requirement that one 3-4 man Fire engine crew and two-two man paramedic crews would be sufficient. That may show that one ambulance at station 2 and an ambulance and fire crew at station 1 is the correct staffing, making it a shift of 7-8 rather than 10. The burden of proof is on the chief and McCurrie to show why that is not sufficient. That difference is about equal to half the deficit.
Bob
11:47 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
2) There have to be some assurances from McCurrie and the union that raises will be limited to about CPI in the future, including step increases. To date, there has been no such agreement for sustainability nor affordability from these two.
3) We need to establish, and have the Board make publically available on their web site, their cost analysis that shows that replacement of expensive equipment is more cost effective than refurbishment.The refurbishment costs are often far less, and no less diminishing to equipment performance. Fire equipment in Palos is VERY low use and low mileage oriented, and equipment sually can effectively last more than 20 years if properly maintained. 12 year replacement periods were mentioned at the meeting. Once again,QUANTITATIVE burden of proof is on Mr MCCurrie before he can expect us to increase taxes by 45%.
Bob
11:55 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
4) We need to see a publically published capital plan for the station facilities on the website. IIRC. Chief Carr said he wanted $75,000 in spending per year for three years. ($225K). I believe the roofs may need replacing at station 1, but beyond that we need more justification.
5) Finally, no matter how supportive we are of our fine firefighters, we need to develop trust of Mr McCurrie and the Board. His handling of that big "giveaway": that any reasonable person can understand caused this crisis makes that impossible. His political trickery, dropping the number of Board members to three, then immeidately increasin it to five again after eliminating his politcal opponent Randy Guinn, cetrtainly does not create any trust in his methods and motives. I would think his resignation after presiding over the creation of this mess would be mandatory for community approval of ANY tax increase, and reforming the Board to ensure such poor political performance would never happen again.
Bob
12:04 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
One thing regarding the arbitration process for public employees. The arbitrator does not give a "fair" resolution to the dispute, he awards to either the union or the district based upon which is "closer" to a fair solution, For example, if a board offers 1% raise and the union requests a 5% raise, and the arbitrator determines a "fair" raise is 3.2%, the raise awarded isn't 3.2%, it's 5 percent because the union's number was closer to the justifiable number. This allows a District that wants to give unaffordable raises a way to "game" the system; they choose number they know will be further from the arbitrator's number than the unions, the union gets more than the "fair" raise from the arbitrator, and the Board calims "there's nothing we could do...it was the ARBITRATOR!" Did this happen in arbitration in Palos fire? I honestly don't know, but it certainly is worth checking out.
Jesse Marx
10:36 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Bob,
Thanks for the advice. I'll make sure Dan sees all this before he prepares his FOIAs.
I pulled McCurrie's quote off my tape recorder. Chief Carr had just offered his purchase projections for the next eight years, mentioning 2020-2021 specifically before McCurrie added his thoughts. Yesterday, Carr told me that he was working on getting a copy of the meeting for Orland Fire and the City of Palos Height, so they could show it on their local TV station.
Bob
12:25 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Jesse, I think everyone in the community wants fairly paid firefighters well equipped and trained to safely do their duty.
We also don't want a repeat of the disastrous board actions that put us all at risk in 2008.
I haven't been able to find much on line about the "justification" for those huge increases. It appears our guys were underpaid before that, but if we had responsible leadership on the board we could have ramped up slowly first to get the staff to average and then perhaps a bit above average.
Going from "worst to first" in one bite was simply bad managemnet by the Board.
I'd really appreciate your getting some serious justifcations from McCurrie for what happened in 2008, in addition to his primary claim that it was because "they had a union".
He's got to do better than that.
Bob
9:16 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
One other thing I believe McCurrie has to answer for, but no one in the press has troubled to ask him the question: Why was it that only three trustees were needed on the Board after many years of having five as of summer of 2011, but all of sudden there was a need for five AGAIN within six months? Was this just to cull political oppostion to his irresponsible spending plans? He hasn't had to justify it in the press, and he should.
The other person who needs to be held accountable is Palos Township Supervisor Collen Grant-Schumann. After the political charade McCurrie pulled, as well as the mess he caused with failure to properly manage resources to protect the community, she could have chosen not to re-appoint him and his cohorts, but she didn't.
Is she OK with the way the district has been run? She's had qualified people apply for the fifth open seat for over a month, and one candidate actually presented his credentials at the Township meeting in January, but she refuses to appoint someone at this Monday's township meeting. Maybe you should ask her what's going on.
Bob
7:34 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
Gee, I brought up a whole set of serious issues concerning the root causes of the district's financial problems during the public comment session, provided references and backup for the data I produced, and yet there wasn't even a mention of it. You did, however, include Maria's short and biased comment.
Can we expect the Patch to continue refusing to report any arguments made in the meetings critical of district financial management or against passing the referendum?
Don't look now, Dan and Jesse, but I think your bias is showing in your "reporting"!
Jesse Marx
10:57 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
Bob,
This article is clearly about the possibility of a merger between Palos and Orland, whereas your comments during the meeting pertained to Palos' financial problems. Orland has been vocal on the subject of a merger, so we felt it time to let Palos have its say. Maria was the only member of the public who spoke directly of this issue. Your comments, while important (Dan is researching the data you presented and more), simply did not address the topic of merger.
Bob
12:38 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
So you chose to cover only the merger issue, and ignore whatever else happened in the meeting. That certainly is a unique approach to covering a board meeting! Of course, you DID find away to mention the referendum "to prevent insolvency" and one could take the approach that what caused the financial problems was the contract,and what caused the "need" for the merger was the financial problems in the district. I guess if you choose not to make that connection, that's your choice!