Ann Arbor fire chief: Staffing levels make a big difference in ability to fight fires
- Related story: Ann Arbor fire chief on restructuring proposal: 'The plan is not perfect, but better'
Fire Chief Chuck Hubbard wasted no time Monday night when asked by an Ann Arbor City Council member what his "magic number" is in terms of staffing.
"Right now it would be 88," Hubbard told 2nd Ward representative Jane Lumm, who asked the chief how many full-time firefighter positions he'd like to have in his budget.
The fire department is budgeted for 82 full-time positions, and the plan is to reduce that to 77 starting July 1, though city officials say those cuts could be avoided.
In the meantime, Hubbard is laying out a restructuring plan that reduces the fire department from five to three stations in order to better deploy existing resources. Staff constraints and the fact that the department is failing to meet national standards are driving the decision.
Fire Chief Chuck Hubbard says ideally he'd like to hire many more firefighters, but he'll take six more if the city is willing.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Hubbard acknowledged the new structure still won't allow the city to meet national standards for responding to fires, but he called it a step in the right direction.
According to historical data provided by the chief, the city still will fail to meet the standard of having four firefighters at a fire within four minutes about 28 percent of the time under the three-station model, and the city will fail to get a full alarm assignment in place on time nearly half the time.
"I'm wondering why you think that's good enough," Lumm asked the chief, who responded candidly from the podium Monday night.
"Well, staffing levels dictate that, so it's not that I think it's good enough — it's working within my means," Hubbard told Lumm.
Lumm called that "a significant statement" on the chief's part.
"Perhaps an even more appropriate question we should be asking as a community and a council," she said, "is what would it take in terms of staffing and structure to meet or exceed the standards, not how we optimize or do the best given this staffing level that we face now."
Hubbard said all departments strive to meet the standards recommended by the National Fire Protection Association, but he doesn't know of any department that meets them.
He said ideally he'd prefer to keep all five stations open and increase the daily staffing levels at each substation from three to four firefighters, and maybe then the department could meet national standards. But he said he'd have to hire at least 30 more firefighters to make that possible, and that'd cost at least an extra $3 million a year.
Hieftje sounded uncertain there's room in the budget for that kind of extra expense and said he'd be hesitant to ask voters to approve a tax hike. A quick calculation shows a 0.7-mill tax costing the average homeowner about $75 a year could raise more than $3 million.
The long-time mayor asked Hubbard if the city would actually experience better service if it hired 30 more firefighters and increased staffing levels at each of the five stations.
"Yes, absolutely," Hubbard responded.
In fact, Hubbard showed council members a video that demonstrated how adding just one extra firefighter to a crew makes a profound difference in fighting fires.
The video was produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and showed the results of an experiment where different-sized crews responded to simulated structure fires. The performances of two-, three-, four-, and five-person crews were measured.
Overall, the four-person crews were 5.1 minutes faster from start to finish than the three-person crews, which NIST called a critical difference when lives are at stake.
In the test situation, four-person crews completed laddering and ventilation necessary for occupant rescue and firefighter safety (should they need to bail out a second-story window) 30 percent faster than two-person crews and 25 percent faster than three-person crews.
Meanwhile, three-person crews started a primary search and rescue 25 percent faster than the two-person crews. In this case, a 10 percent difference was equivalent to just over one minute, a critical number when considering toxicity and fire growth.
In comparing four- and five-person crews collectively to two- and three-person crews, the average time difference to stretch a hose line to the fire to conduct suppression was 76 seconds. A four-person crew was 87 seconds faster at stretching a hose than a two-person crew, and a five-person crew was more than two minutes faster than a two-person crew.
The five-person crews assembled an effective response force three minutes faster than the four-person crews, while the two- and three-person crews struggled to meet standards.
Regardless of fire size, toxicity experienced by the occupant at the time of rescue varied significantly depending on the arrival time of different-sized crews. The test clearly showed that two-person crews could not complete essential fire ground tasks in time to rescue occupants without subjecting them to an increasingly toxic atmosphere.
Hubbard said those findings help justify his proposal, which calls for doing away with the five-station model where there are just three firefighters at most stations. Under the three-station model, there would be six firefighters and one battalion chief at Station 1 downtown, six firefighters at Station 2 at Stadium and Packard, and four firefighters at Station 5 off Plymouth Road near the University of Michigan's North Campus.
That means crews with four or more firefighters can leave from the same station and arrive together at a fire — rather than the current five-station model where there are only three firefighters at each station and they must come from different parts of the city.
"If they come from two different locations and one arrives and they're waiting for the other one, that takes away from that four-man operation," Hubbard said.
The video from NIST made the argument that staff size does make a big difference when it comes to fighting fires, logic that's been contested by some city officials in recent years.
"The number of firefighters does make a difference … absolutely," Hubbard said. "But in all departments in all cities, with budget constraints and things, we only have what we have. So the key now is to take what you have and try to make an efficient system out of that."
Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, recalled the city discussed the issue of fire response a couple of years ago and she remembers being told everything was OK.
"We were told that two people coming from Station 1 and two people coming from Station 3 could converge on the fire and everything would be covered," she said. "Looking at the maps, it doesn't seem to me that was as clean as I would have liked it."
Briere asked if the information had changed or if the data Hubbard presented Monday night is just a different way of looking at the department's staffing.
"The information hasn't changed," said Hubbard, who has worked for the department for more than two decades and was appointed chief last year.
Council Member Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward, asked the fire chief if he believed cuts to the department's staffing levels have contributed to the rise in fire fatalities in the city over the last several years. Hubbard hesitated for several seconds before responding: "With the ones that I'm familiar with, no."
Council Member Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward, raised concerns that areas of the city that see lots of parking and congestion on football Saturdays might be impacted by the loss of stations.
Hubbard said the city could consider special deployment models for such occasions and, for example, strategically staff a truck in a certain area of the city.
Tom Crawford, the city's chief financial officer, reported Monday night that the city might be able to maintain current staffing levels and budget for 82 fire department employees in the fiscal year that starts July 1. And if all goes well, the city could bump that up to 88 in July 2013.
Hubbard noted that he has expanded the department's fire prevention division from three to seven people, which took four firefighters out of suppression. If he could get staffing levels where he'd like them, he said he'd promote another person to a public education position.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Carole
Wed, Mar 14, 2012 : 10:45 a.m.
More break in, theft, understaffed fire department, -- what is needed is more police and firefighters.
Alan Goldsmith
Wed, Mar 14, 2012 : 10:38 a.m.
"@Chase, "substandard lifestyles" are to blame? By your logic, Ann Arbor should ban all smoking and alcohol use, kick out everyone except rich, white middle-age folks and things would be peachy?" I thought that was the Mayor's campaign platform.
talker
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 10:59 p.m.
Whether or not firefighting protection is increased, I suggest buying fire extinguishers, just as we all buy smoke detectors. In a two story house, I suggest one on each floor. Fire extinguishers don't have to be serviced or replaced as smoke detectors. Check the labels of ones you consider, but I think most don't need servicing or replacing for at least 10 years. I wonder if concern about the city's fire fighting ability will deter people from attending football games or if it will affect where parents of U. of M. students chose or prefer residences (edifice, location, floor, etc.). Isn't this in the interests of the U. of M., as well as to townies?
jcj
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 7:54 p.m.
The long-time mayor asked Hubbard if the city would actually experience better service if it hired 30 more firefighters and increased staffing levels at each of the five stations It is scary that a "long time mayor" would ask such a question!
63Townie
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 5:27 p.m.
@Chase, "substandard lifestyles" are to blame? By your logic, Ann Arbor should ban all smoking and alcohol use, kick out everyone except rich, white middle-age folks and things would be peachy? Really? Wow.
Chase Ingersoll
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 4:35 p.m.
Analogy: Road safety - there is a bridge on I94 that comes right after a pretty steep curve. There area lot of crashes. Fire Department Chief Solution: park and ambulance nearby, especially during icy conditions and build a bigger emergency room and hire more ER doctors so that we can save the lives of the people that get hurt. If we have to raise taxes to do this, and we will, so be it. Progressive Solution: install LED lit signs on I94, before the curve and the bridge, warning drivers to slow down because of the curve and icy bridge. Chase Ingersoll
gofigure
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.
That's pretty a tasteless and callous comment considering a Fire Fighter was killed WHILE doing her job at that very part of 94.
Chase Ingersoll
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 4:26 p.m.
....they may block this, which is why I separated it.... Groups at Risk Groups at increased risk of fire-related injuries and deaths include: Children 4 and under (CDC 2010; Flynn 2010); Older Adults ages 65 and older (CDC 2010; Flynn 2010); African Americans and Native Americans (CDC 2010; Flynn 2010); The poorest Americans (Istre 2001; Flynn 2010); Persons living in rural areas (Ahrens 2003; Flynn 2010); Persons living in manufactured homes or substandard housing (Runyan 1992; Parker 1993).
Chase Ingersoll
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 4:20 p.m.
If you are having to battle or "fight the fire", it means you have already lost the war in terms of prevention. Some interesting statistics: -Smoking is the leading cause of fire-related deaths -Alcohol use contributes to an estimated 40% of residential fire deaths -Over one-third (37%) home fire deaths occur in homes without smoke alarms (Ahrens 2011). -Cooking is the primary cause of residential fires (Ahrens 2011). -Apartments, especially the multifamily high rises are far safer than single family homes and duplexes, because they are built to better standards, better materials, maintained, have proper egress for fire escape and have fire suppression sprinkler systems. Here is your profile: single family homes or duplexes, without properly working smoke detectors where the inhabitants, cook, imbibe and smoke. I'm leaving out the data on race, age and income level so as to not make an issue of it and instead focus on the property and behavioral characteristics. Also, if you look up the research on fires and deaths in multi-family high rises built after 19XX and with sprinkler systems, I think you'll be glad to realize that Stephen Lange Ranzini and his family are in the least likely to be a victim of a fire category. The point of all of this is that this is really about substandard property and substandard lifestyles, rather than the quality of the local fire department. Chase Ingersoll
Ken
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.
Well Chief Hubbard, how much will we have to spend in order to get Station 2 that has been closed for several years back on line? How much added time will there be; when Station 2 responds to a fire or other emergency at say.......Pioneer High or again at Webers after having to go around the Stadium Bridge? I guess we will be just a little outside the recommended response time. I would rather see a Public Safety millage be put to a vote rather than an expanded Transit millage. Just remember though, we can all keep an upbeat attitude with all of our Public Art and the thought of AATA becoming County Wide!!
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:47 p.m.
I found an interesting quote on the Internet and am curious if any lawyers out there can verify if this is true? "The NFPA is the organization that develops and promotes standards (best practices) for the fire service, many of which get incorporated into OSHA regulations, which are mandatory. Regardless, NFPA standards are designed to make operations on the fireground safer. While considered 'voluntary', in the case where death or injury occurs and litigation follows, the courts have looked at NFPA standards as the "law" and ruled accordingly. In other words, failure to follow the Standards could set up a fire department for (and to lose) a law suit." If true, please mote that the city is self-insured for insurance and has a stop loss re-insurance policy that covers only up to $20 million per incident. If a tall building is given the proposed "surround and drown" treatment - this discussion isn't just about possible loss of life but loss of property - the law suit would be devastating for the city's General Fund.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 5:01 p.m.
@Chase: I only used the example of my family to illustrate why I became openly a member of the "loyal opposition", but this isn't about me or my family, but whether the town in general has adequate fire prevention, fire suppression and emergency life saving response services in place. Ann Arbor needs those in place or it will not thrive. I want Ann Arbor to thrive.
Chase Ingersoll
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 4:23 p.m.
Stephen: Don't stress on this. You have your family living in the type of building where they are the least likely to be harmed by fire.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 4:02 p.m.
"mote" should be "note" Sigh. Sorry!
a2miguy
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:39 p.m.
"We were told that two people coming from Station 1 and two people coming from Station 3 could converge on the fire and everything would be covered," [Briere] said. And.... what if there are two fires at once?
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:26 p.m.
"Fire Chief Chuck Hubbard wasted no time Monday night when asked by an Ann Arbor City Council member what his "magic number" is in terms of staffing. 'Right now it would be 88,' The fire department is budgeted for 82 full-time positions, and the plan is to reduce that to 77 starting July 1, though city officials say those cuts could be avoided." FYI, the fire department currently has only 76 employees. The difference between 76 employees and 88 employees is a cost of about $1.2 million a year.
bunnyabbot
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.
..."Hieftje sounded uncertain there's room in the budget for that kind of extra expense and said he'd be hesitant to ask voters to approve a tax hike." I find this interesting. He's hesitant to ask voters to approve a tax (hike), yet he hasn't hesitated to ask for other monies. There is discussion about county wide transit (tax) and parks and sidewalk repairs. I know that the U doesn't pay property taxes but why aren't they at least required (or willing) to pay the minimal amount that covers fire protection. How is it safe to only have three fire stations open with all the student housing around here? It just doesn't make sense. and just what are they saving the rainy day surplus for? interestingly enough I was just speaking to someone else about property taxes going up (and then there was an article about how 40% ish win when they try to appeal their property taxes rates). My friend commented that a class action lawsuit should be brought against the city for breach of contract as they are not meeting minimal requirements for safety and have continuously wasted or mismanaged funds, it will also be about a year that insurance rates will go up reflecting the lower fire saftey rating.
63Townie
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 5:18 p.m.
AMEN!
jcj
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
The Mayor, Chief Hubbard (out of towner?) and Powers (out of towner?) might just do more than anyone in the history of this city to unite everyone. AGAINST them!
newsboy
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.
If the life boat is full and one more person will cause the boat to sink, why are we still filling the boat? You will never pass another millage as long as you continue to squander our resources on pet projects, charity and tree hugging. Ann Arbor; we make Detroit look great!
63Townie
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:01 p.m.
..."Hieftje sounded uncertain there's room in the budget for that kind of extra expense and said he'd be hesitant to ask voters to approve a tax hike. A quick calculation shows a 0.7-mill tax costing the average homeowner about $75 a year could raise more than $3 million." Yet the mayor won't hesitate to ask us for millages to keep parks open or divert money to public art and wasteful transportation projects. Why not let US decide how we want our money spent?
63Townie
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.
@Brad, exactly. They knew citizens would never vote to fund public art so they just went ahead and did in a way it couldn't be stopped.
Brad
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 3:01 p.m.
Nobody asked me about a millage for art. No way they'd put that to a vote - they'd lose.
Gale Logan
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:49 p.m.
Seems like the answer to grateful's question is there has been a decade long shortage of funds for cities in Michigan, a near depression. Every city I know of has closed fire stations and cut staff. Seems like Ann Arbor is doing a whole lot better than the rest. The roads? The city saved a ton of $$ by getting federal funding for the bridge and if you saw the A2 Observer this month, the city will spend 3 times more on the roads than last year now that they have the fed. $$. I tuned into the meeting last night. The CFO said there is no money going into the ART fund from the general fund so there is no effect on staffing in the fire department.
talker
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 11:27 p.m.
Money is fungible. Someone who has no money to buy food, but has money set aside to go to expensive concerts, might go to free concerts and buy food. Firefighting is basic. Did Council have the authority to vote to remove some money from the art fund? BTW, those less expensive historical markers around town are much nicer than the "art."
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:27 p.m.
@jcj: ...and perhaps multiple voting?
jcj
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.
I wonder if the Mayor has a distant relative beating his drum?
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.
The scientific national standard for best practices in fire safety includes the ability to get four firefighters to 90% of all fires within four minutes. It comes down to this with the 2013 fiscal year budget, do you want: A. $1.4 million added to the rainy day fund with 76 firefighters operating from three fire stations who can get to 72 percent of all fires with four firefighters in four minutes, OR B. $200,000 added to the rainy day fund with 88 firefighters operating from five fire stations able to get to 90 percent of all fires with four firefighters in four minutes. The chief says that he really needs B, but the Mayor wants to give us A. I vote for "Plan B"!!
yourdad
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 4:37 p.m.
Amen! Keep it simple, so even the university folks can understand!
jcj
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:42 p.m.
Ryan! PLEASE tell us where Hubbard and Powers live! Is it even in this city???? What's the secret?
jcj
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:40 p.m.
"It's a little unusual because people think of closing stations as a diminished service, when actually this plan would give us better service to more areas of the city," Mayor John Hieftje said Monday night, Are YOU serious? This Mayor and fire chief are doing more double speak than Mr double talk Durwood Fincher. Check out one of his videos <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjZ7aiXZDk4&feature=related" rel='nofollow'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjZ7aiXZDk4&feature=related</a>
Dave Gear
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.
The chief also said he would need 30 more fire fighters to fully staff the existing stations. Over $3 million more per year. This for a service that could be accomplished with the chiefs new plan along with continued regional cooperation.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.
@Dave Gear: "Fire Chief Chuck Hubbard wasted no time Monday night when asked by an Ann Arbor City Council member what his "magic number" is in terms of staffing. 'Right now it would be 88,' The fire department is budgeted for 82 full-time positions, and the plan is to reduce that to 77 starting July 1, though city officials say those cuts could be avoided." FYI, the fire department currently has only 76 employees. The difference between 76 employees and 88 employees is a cost of about $1.2 million a year.
DNB
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:30 p.m.
"It's a little unusual because people think of closing stations as a diminished service, when actually this plan would give us better service to more areas of the city," Mayor John Hieftje said Monday night, expressing support for Hubbard's proposal. Hubbard's proposal would reopen Fire Station #2, on Stadium, near Packard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this make this newly reopened fire station CLOSER to Mayor H's home...less than a two minute drive now?? Hmmmmmm. It would also close Stations 3, 4 and 6. Many more citizens would now be farther away from an open fire station. The bridge closing has had a deep impact on traffic patterns, as most of us have found out. This bridge closure definately effects response times, and will only get worse if we close 3 additional fire stations.
Dave Gear
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.
The fire chief said: He doesn't know of a city that meets the national standard. The fatalities were not related to staffing. Acknowledged the money has been in the budget for a year and he is going to buy a new tower truck, could get one in 30 days from RFP. Interesting meeting to watch. Learned the facts are quite different than what you see here. NO money goes to art that could go to the police department or fire department. Funding the new justice building does not affect paying for staffing in the police or fire departments. These facts are rarely if ever reported here? Why not?
63Townie
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 5:36 p.m.
"...Firefighters should never arrive at a fire that doesn't have smoke detectors in full alert!" @yourdad, just how do you implement that??
yourdad
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 4:34 p.m.
@grateful, smoke detectors, fire suppression systems and community awareness are the best ways to prevent fire fatalities! Firefighters should never arrive at a fire that doesn't have smoke detectors in full alert!
a2grateful
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.
Acknowledging that money has been budgeted, but not spent as intended, is the hallmark (haul-mark aka citizenry ) of corruption. "We could buy a needed firetruck in 30 days. . . (if we wanted to)." How comforting!
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.
The fire inspection and prevention department in Ann Arbor was obliterated by the cuts and until last Summer they only had one fire inspector left, and she had only recently been trained. In my opinion, the decrease in prevention efforts as this staff was cut to the bone, is why the deaths increased so much and the severity of the fires increased over time. Since last Summer, the chief staffed up and the FD now has 7 in the inspection division. However, 4 of those employees are temporarily assigned. That is a good thing to beef up the inspection division. However, those four positions were filled from the operations division. Meaning, 4 more people are no longer in the various stations. Less people available for daily emergency responses. By taking 4 fire safety people off the line, the city can only field 15 fire fighters per shift, even further away from the 18 required to meet the current staffing plan that would be required to adequately staff all of the existing five fire stations to meet national standards for response times.
a2grateful
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 2:06 p.m.
Admitting that fatalities resulted from inadequate staffing would open the city to huge liability. No Ann Arbor city employee will ever admit this. By the way, if the increase in fatalities is not attributable to staffing, what is the cause?
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:25 p.m.
As I type this, I am at a conference at the headquarters of NIST (National institute for Standards and Technology), the group that made those videos. It's not so tough to solve this problem. You first determine what your goal is: adequate fire safety for the entire city as defined by *scientific* best practices (NFPA). Then you determine the resources required to meet that best practice. Then you figure out how to find the resources if you don't have them. This is management 101. To have adequate staffing for the existing five fire stations to meet the NFPA national standards, I am told takes 18 firefighters per shift versus the 15 staffed currently. This would require 12 additional firefighters (four extra people for each of three shifts a day) in total to staff all shifts from current staffing, or 88 firefighters in total. I don't *yet* have the total annual cost of new hires (wages and benefits) under the new contract that takes effect later this year, but to use round numbers assume this is $100,000 per person per year. Then it would cost $1.2 million a year extra. The fiscal year 2013 city budget presentation states that the City Manager and CFO will propose to City Council a revision to the 2013 budget to put what is now projected to be a $1.4 million surplus into the general fund's rainy day fund, so this plan that I've outlined above would cut the amount going into the rainy day fund in fiscal year 2013 to $200,000. See: <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-city-council-fiscal-year-2012-13-budget-outlook/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-city-council-fiscal-year-2012-13-budget-outlook/</a> This is the big picture on what it would cost to properly staff the five existing fire stations and not close two of them. In case you missed it, please read this for more background info: <a href="http://annarbor.com/news/opinion/ann-arbors-deficient-fire-protection-achieves-new-heights-of-folly/?cmpid=NL_DH_topheadlines">http://annarbor.com/news/opinion/ann-arbors-deficient-fire-protection-achieves-new-heights-of-folly/?cmpid=NL_DH_topheadlines</a>
Brad
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
"Council Member Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward, raised concerns that areas of the city that see lots of parking and congestion on football Saturdays might be impacted by the loss of stations" Leave it to Ms. Higgins to go right for the most critical problem with the new plan - what happens on football Saturdays. Those other 357 days everything will be just fine. As long as you live close to an open fire station.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
"Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, recalled the city discussed the issue of fire response a couple of years ago and she remembers being told everything was OK." City Officiasl lied to you Sabra. That's pretty obvious. What are you and Council Democrats going to do about it?
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:10 p.m.
"How do we achieve substandard fire protection, substandard police protection, substandard road infrastructure, and substandard citizen accountability in a resource- and tax-rich environment such as Ann Arbor?" It would be nice if we had a local media asking these questions but the promises made with AnnArbor'com's debut just haven't been kept--just like our Mayor's campaign promises. Ying yang.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:06 p.m.
"It's a little unusual because people think of closing stations as a diminished service, when actually this plan would give us better service to more areas of the city," Mayor John Hieftje said Monday night, expressing support for Hubbard's proposal. It's time to RECALL this guy. As much as I can argue the Zen-like theory that less is more, less fire protection will eventually lead to less safety, more deaths and more damaged and destroyed buildings. The Mayor should go join the Puppet Head Parade group and leave the city's safety issues to folks with a clue. And Ann Arbor Dot Com needs to start running the stock photo with the Mayor and the Puppet Head with articles like this where he makes amazingly silly statements.
Mike58
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.
That's my favorite Hieftje statement of all time. And there have been many. Lol. It made my day. I forwarded that to my family and friends. It doesn't get any better than this folks!
a2grateful
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
How do we achieve substandard fire protection, substandard police protection, substandard road infrastructure, and substandard citizen accountability in a resource- and tax-rich environment such as Ann Arbor? It all starts with the mayor. It may be time to analyze current mayoral powers extended by city charter. These may have been sufficient at the time of their inception, but seem to be totally inadequate now. Plain and simple: the mayor has too much power. His leadership now hurts the city badly. Ann Arbor is in decline. What you say? We keep winning awards. . . How could this be? Ann Arbor's PR is certainly strong. Hooray. . . hoorah . . . Except, the reality does not meet the cheerlead. In the mayor's statement of comfort for his public safety experiment, it is clear that he has taken a statistician's view of life risk and value. He is comfortable with devaluing citizenry life, while valuing his personal trivial personal hobbies such as folly fountains, folly DDA and projects, and folly trolleys. Now, our families are clearly at risk. We have a substandard fire department. We don't have enough people to fight fires. We don't have the proper firetrucks. Now, we won't have the fire stations. How could this happen here? Why don't we care? These are two good questions to ponder while standing in front of the folly fountain, located just beneath the "Justice" sign.
a2grateful
Wed, Mar 14, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.
Leadership 101: The wasted ad nauseam hours spent on the Heiftje Hotel and Conference center, Heiftje underground parking debacle, attempted selling of parkland in Miles of Golf "lease" ownership of Arbor Hills, transferring parkland to parking garages and train stations, never-ending folly trolley nonsense, % for "art," etc The mayor drives this agenda. This time could have been spent on public safety and infrastructure, those boring topics that are the bane of our mayor and all but three of council. Ad to the list mayoral appointees that control civic dollars with no accountability, such as DDA, AATA, etc. Starting to get the jest? And the coupe de grace for the well being of our city: the mayor has signed a no-conflict-of-interest clause with his true employer, U of M. His loyalty is legally to them, not with citizens of Ann Arbor. That is an ethical issue that council will not address, as most of them have U of M ties, as well. And just for levity, the doubling of our mayoral salary for what was intended to be a part-time advisory job. One more laugh: August primaries that occur when 38% of the voters are away (students). See any room for improvement when it comes to position of the mayor and its current power? Don't blame the state. Headlee isn't an issue here. The city has money to burn. Tax collections are at an all time high. Next, DDA has nothing to do with the city of Ann Arbor's growth and well being. Population here is stagnant for 20 years. It is projected to be stagnant for the next 20 years. Why not disband the DDA, and return tax dollars to the entities that it robs? Maslow's hierarchy of needs should be adapted to government and public service. Take care of our survival basics, then go to the next level. However, in Ann Arbor, we start with frivolity. The mayoral position is about leadership. The leadership role now takes advantage of an obsolete and dated power structure. Time for a change? . . . ; )
Rod Johnson
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 11:28 p.m.
I think a lot of the blame you're looking to lie belongs at the state level. I'm no fan of the mayor's, but blaming him for the city's problems seems a bit off-base. Ann Arbor doesn't have an especially strong mayor position--I'm curious which of the problems you mention are things the mayor has done unilaterally with those city charter-granted powers you mention. I'm also curious what you'd do to fix the city's problems. If we cancel the one percent for art program, that would free up one percent of the budget, I will grant. But that won't really have that much impact overall. We can't raise property taxes (thanks to Dick Headlee), income tax is a politically toxic idea, and revenue sharing from the state is down. The DDA is not a sink we're pouring money down--it's the reverse, in fact. So if you want to substantially reverse the trend toward "substandard" services, where will the money come from? Don't take any of this as an endorsement of the city's direction. But your analysis doesn't seem very persuasive.
Ken
Tue, Mar 13, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
well a2, at least we have the "ultimate" in Transit Authorities in the works!