I disagree with the staff writer about response times related to having the station staffed or not. First of all, at least 90% of the fire departments in this state are not manned at all. Totally volunteer or paid on-call. Response times are important, but training and tactics are more important. Remember, fire trucks do not put out fires, firefighter do. Having a happy, trained, and unified department that spends their money wisely is more important than a few full-time drivers sitting at the station. I still am scratching my head, 23 total fire calls and full time staff? Wow, my department has on average 200-250 fire calls a year with no full-time employees. Nevertheless, the latest I-falls proposal seems fair to me.

First of all, God Bless our firemen, EMT's, and (I believe) one paramedic.

Our fire department has had full time employees for many years. In these times, we need to look at what we can do better as our town as gotten smaller. We respond to about 2-3 fires a month, yet 5 medicals a day at times. Where is our priority in our aged community? Lots of cities in MN with over 50,000 people don't have any full time firemen. If they do, it's only the Chief. So why do we spend the money?

I don't want to see our full-time firemen lose their jobs. Why can't we have them become EMT's and take the ambulance runs as well? These days, due to fire protection (smoke alarms, sprinkler systems, etc), fire education, building codes, etc; we don't see as many fires or large fires like the Rex Hotel (where Giovanni's currently is). Even metro fire departments (full-time firemen) respond to medicals. The City of I Falls would save money if these full-time firemen pulled dual duties. If they can't do that, don't replace full-time firemen after each one retires. Like someone said, fast response is nice......but most of the time firemen are trying to "save the basement" because the fire has already done it's damage.

Just to let you all know, our full time fireman engineers here in International Falls are EMT's. I think the RFPA is gonna have there hands full when they decide to take on fire protection on there own. Are they also going to take on car accidents in the Rural area that need Auto Extracation????? and assist the Sheriff's Dept in water rescue???? I suppose they will expect the city taxpayers to pick up the bill when there is a accident or emergency and these services are needed. Will the Fire Fighters on this department be Fire Fighter One Certified. Will each fire fighter be trained in SCBA's {Self Contained Breathing Apparatus}. Are they going to train all 25 members how to run each truck. We have full time drivers on the City Dept that see and work with these trucks each day and still make mistakes. I would hate to be the one operating the truck on this RURAL FIRE DEPT when something goes wrong and there are lives on the line and there is untrained firefighters on the emergency scene.
But hey leave it to Chief Grotberg that is going to Live 20+ minutes away from every fire call to call the shots. As most of you know, minutes can save lives and living 20+ minutes away is not gonna work. The 70 dollars per household collected right now that totals the 147,500 the city is asking for why is this a fight?? I suppose they need the 50,000 to be able to sit around and have their little parties. To end this Blog here, I am a rural resident and i have never recieved a letter about RURAL BOARD ELECTIONS so i am just curious who elects this board anyway?????????

Vindicate - what's at stake for the IFFD?

Since the IFFD's current operating budget for city fire protection in all likelihood won't be impacted negatively as a result of this separation, I can only see benefits for the city and it's residents.
One downside (unrelated, in a sense, to the fire protection issue) is this: city residents will still pay their share into services and county residents will continue to receive many of them for free. How much funding does the public library receive from the county? The parks and recreation programs? It seems the county (via the county board) has done a good job of milking services city residents pay for. I'm not saying people who live in the county are doing so maliciously; I'm saying the city has never made a concerted attempt to collect fees from non-residents.
When the issue of fire protection reared it's head again this year, the city determined it was time for each recipient of protection to pay their (somewhat) equal share. The county balked at the idea. Now county residents will be left with what their representatives on the county board deem adequate fire protection. In my opinion, the city's request for payment was fair - especially after they lowered their asking price for fire protection.
County residents should pay attention in the coming (election) year. They should pay attention to the quality of services they are being provided, but more importantly, pay attention to how well they are being represented by their elected officials at the county level. I would include the RFPA into that group, but it seems there is little understanding of just how those people attain their positions. It seems personal vendettas against the city have clouded the view of several county representatives; their constituencies will now pay for it. . . .

Researching just how much International Falls expends annually in comparison to other communities, I found our library is actually ranked 5th in city funding (per capita) out of 115 cities in the state with a population greater than 2,500. This is going to be awfully repetitive, but I need to type this again - per capita, residents in International Falls pay the 5th highest amount annually on their library in the entire state. I would like to hear someone bring up the salary debate in terms of Police Chief - Fire Chief - Street Commissioner - Librarian after reading that.

Interestingly, the fire department ranks 93rd of 221 cities with a population greater than 2,500. (The discrepency in total cities with populations greater than 2,500 is a result of 106 cities within the category that do not fund libraries with city monies.)

So, in terms of per capita expenditures for fire protection services, we rank 93rd out of 221 cities with populations greater than 2,500. Grand Rapids, FYI, is ranked 76th. That means even though they are volunteer, they pay more every year for their fire services. These are numbers from 2007, but a look at the city's budgets over the last couple of fiscal years will show you there has been no significant increase to the IFFD budget. Is 93rd out of 221 all that high? International Falls ranks as the 111th largest city in Minnesota, as you can find from this website: http://www.citytowninfo.com/places/minnesota
It took me some sorting/cutting and pasting into Excel to figure that ranking out, so maybe there's a quicker way, but 111th is where we sit as of the last census. So let's recap: we expend the 93rd highest amount PER CAPITA on fire protection. NOT the 93rd highest real dollar amount out of the 221 cities; we're ranked the 111th largest city. I would say that's just about right. In fact, I have a hard time finding a reason to say I. Falls spends to much when that data is considered.

Below is the link to the Minnesota State Auditor's city financial data search website. On the Journal Online, I have read many people posting how information should be made public. Google is a wonderful thing. This information is all legally available to the public.

http://www.osa.state.mn.us/Search/CitySearch.aspx

I hope the wrong link was posted there. Otherwise, you just posted a URL to show everyone definitively International Falls is categorized as a combination department. We already knew that.

Sure, the population is in decline. At a faster rate now than in any years other than the time period(s) when large employment opportunities were lost. Which means it is just about the fastest rate of decline in the city's history. There's nobody who can argue that. Unfortunately, that's not central to your argument. If it is, you may need to rethink. With declining populations, the most cost-effective option for the area would be to remain a single department, not pay for two.

You say "your argument" is that Grand Rapids, et al. rely on other departments for support. I'm not sure you could have made my point for me any better than that. Rapids can depend on others. Who else is in the near vicinity for the IFFD? Ft. Frances is, and they will support, but only in extraordinary circumstances. If there's another department formed in the area(like the RFPA's,for example) the IFFD isn't going to get a whole lot of support from them. That's not because the RFPA firefighters won't work hard and do everything they can to support - I'm confident any firefighter will give their best effort when life and property are at stake. Not just because it says so on their patch, either. They will (I'm assuming, based on my knowledge of firefighters) believe in the importance of what it is they do. The problem is, they (future RFPA guys) only bring more bodies to the scene of a fire. They're not going to bring a large reserve of equipment and they're not going to bring a wealth of knowledge.

Now, you say some firefighters on the IFFD have a desire to serve on the new RFPA department. I would assume that is very correct. Benefits bestowed upon firefighters (pensions, etc.) are enticing. Add on to that the inherent desire to do good throughout the community most of the IFFD firefighters have, and it's a no-brainer. If there's a fire to put out, those men would want to be there, lend a hand, and do what they have been trained to do!

Therein lies a problem. . . they've been trained to do the job on the city's dime. How likely is it for the city to allow firefighters they have trained (at great cost to city residents) serve on a department other than theirs? You and I both know there's no way on God's green Earth the RFPA is going to reimburse the city for past training of those firefighters. They're (the RFPA)going to try to pick up experience at the cost of the city. Although it would be a great thing for the RFPA's new department - and it would most certainly give more credibility to that department - to have IFFD firefighters join, I can't see how the city would allow it. If they do, there should be some seriously disgruntled taxpayers showing up to the next city council meeting.

Your experience crawling through fire is admirable, no doubt. I wonder if you are currently a firefighter, or a past firefighter? Regardless, I'm sure you can see the dilemma the city will be in if the council is forced to make a decision as to whether they allow IFFD firefighters join the RFPA's department. Since you are a (past or current) firefighter, I'm sure you would agree when I say it could be a dicey proposition for you if you were asked to go into a burning building with untrained people leading you, and undertrained firefighters next to you at the scene. That proposition gets even more hairy when you consider you'll be doing it on a timeline that has given the fire more time to mature before your arrival. Since fire prevention (smoke alarm installation, inspections, etc.) done by the IFFD now won't (presumably) be continued in the outlying areas, that situation could present itself more and more over time. . . .

Trou...been looking at your site. Good one...
Are you saying that 93 out of 221 does not have room for improvement? Are we saying "business as usual"? We'll have to find a site with those numbers broke down. They're really vague, especially when the ambulance is lumped in with the Law Enforcement...chief used to hate that. The ambulance makes the FD survive...hence name changes. In order to see what the future numbers would be with the RFPA...we need to extrapolate those monies....revenues and services out of those numbers. The per capita numbers? Do they include just city population? RFPA members contribute...but I don't think they're in the actual headcount...not sure where the revenue would show up either. Also there's variation in the retirement numbers and scales of wages across employees. Not sure the numbers at face value scream clarity for our discussion due to variation in ranking numbers and per capita variations with population changes. I'd like to see the break down of those categories if we were to wage a statistical bowl. Also costs in those numbers include retirement funds that would no longer be there, nor would fire 2% contributions be factored. There would also be greater costs for the city for training and equipment....that was usually split 50/50 with the rural and city...that's the $50K that some commentator above said was used for parties. Speaking of which...have you ever seen what is spent for fireworks? Wow...
Then there's all those pot holes.....as well off as our city is...we have a food bank that struggles.....and we will even have a homeless shelter soon... Maybe I.Falls doesn't spend too much...I think it can be reallocated to better priorities that dictate need by evidence. 35 fires..... I don't want people to lose jobs...not about that....I think the jobs just need to change to reflect our city's AND counties needs....
Couldn't we all pitch in and hire "The Lady" from our old school playground to make the city and county place nice....I bet she can still yank a good grip of hair or an ear.....
P.S. Ya know....did you notice the $300K reduction in the streets over 5 years......and don't they show it now.