Occam's Razor: Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

The solution IS to hire adequate staffing for all areas of Public Safety. In case no one has noticed, there is a sizeable population of senior citizens and this is a major drain on manpower in and of itself.

Re-aligning the City's pay structure is needed, regardless of Public Safety or any other issue. Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians and a couple of the chiefs are highly overpaid for their qualifications(or lack thereof). It's always the lowest-paid that do most of the work(think Street Dept employees in the summer keeping PTC beautiful), but the balance is WAY out of whack with PTC govt right now.
NUK

I hope you are prepared for a big tax increase to support your recommendation:

There are 3 shifts in the department since each shift works 24 on and 48 off.

Say the decision is made to add one firefighter for each current station:

4 stations times 3 shifts equal 12 firefighters:

Average salary at entry level maybe $35,000 then add benefits, pension, all other insurance, etc lets round it out to $50,000 a year for each new position.

That's $600,000 to add one person per shift! All other options need to be fully explored, but if based on population growth and call volume as well as Firefighter safety they are approved by the council I hope the city will manage it's money much better and start building up a reserve to address this coming crisis.

So how much money are we really talking about? Our taxes would go up ...what....an extra $15 a year? 80 cents per firefighter? If we are willing to pay for all of those Admin "Directors" and "Managers", then what's the problem? If we don't have adequate public safety staffing, then there is indeed a 'coming crisis' and we have an opportunity to do something about it before it is too late. But, it's all about priorities.

Leoah Whineknott

That has been the amjor issue...Public safety has not been a priortiy. We have been trying to fix this staffing issue for years but it keeps getting put off. NOW....I believe we have a council and maybe a mayor (vote pending)that have planned to make us a priority. Time will tell.

And I don't see adding one person per shift all in one year, either.

I'm not a fan of increasing taxes at all. The City budget hasn't yet been scrutinized on the payroll side as heavily as many have promised while running for office. The Mercer Group's wage and job classification study done a few years ago is VERY flawed and skews the City's payroll. When you deliberately go out of state to hire a consulting company(I guess there are none in say, Atlanta?)and massage the results a few times, you are basically paying for someone to give you what you pre-determined, not a REAL honest evaluation. That study and the results that were contrived and derived still affects the overall wage scales of PTC.

I agree with you on building the reserves back up. A few years back, the reserve funding formula at the direction of Steve Rapson was revised that lowered the amount of reserves required annually. The heady days of impact fees and money pouring in are over and it's time to plan for a future of belt-tightening.

All that said, you can boost the level of employees and service for the Fire Dept without raising taxes. Start at the top of the overpaid and uneccesary and reduce salary and go on down from there. Can this job be done just as effectively by someone else making 50% less salary? Is the person presently in this position capable of earning anything remotely close to what we are paying them?(if the answer is NO, you are OVER-PAYING THEM!) Get ruthless when it comes to dollars and cents. Run the government with real-world business principles instead of paying for redundant overhead.

NUK

You guys are bringing up a lot of good points, but there is plenty of fat in the budget and in the city government in general. Many of these areas need to be revisited. I hammer a lot on the Assitant City Manager because it's an easy target. $106,000 per year PLUS benefits. That may equate to at least 2 maybe 3 firefighters. And this is a position that never existed until a couple years ago when Brown got it passed. During all the expansion etc. of the city a fulltime City Manager and his staff accomplished tremendous goals. Now we have a fulltime mayor, a full time City Manager, and a fulltime Assistant City Manager, and the city coffers are growing all the time (just look at the job offerings on Comcast). Yet we have essentially achieved buildout, so in reality much of the day to day running should have gotten easier. So instead of making our emergency services take hits, how about we look at all the new jobs that Brown has created and see if THEY are worth the money.

How during a time of non-expansion can a City that was running fine 4 years ago suddenly have to add a full time Mayor and a full time Asst. City Mgr that didn't exist before? I'm betting that without a full time Mayor around to get in the way of the City staff operating, efficiency will dramatically increase and Bernie McMullen will get a chance to be a real City manager. Unnecessary positions will be eliminated(Asst. City Mgr for starters) and the pay structure revised to more accurately reflect the nature of individual job titles. You have a couple of glaringly overpaid managers on City staff right now. It's time they justify why they make what they do in salary and whether the job could be done the same or better by a lesser-paid and more qualified individual.

NUK

NUK - I'd really like you to elaborate on who you think gets paid too much, as it appears you have some insight on the pay study...but on another topic, did you know that the City had a hiring freeze for the past few years? This year is the first year they were really allowed to hire positions that they "said" were needed, so that's why I assume you see so many positions on Comcast. What should salaries be, as it appears you believe them to be extravagant?

I wonder how salaries in Peachtree City government compare to other governments...are they just the fatcats everyone suspects?

I need to get a current list as of now of allt he salaries. After that, I'll be devoting a blog or three to the subject:)
NUK

I noticed your rather snide and sacrastic response to a posting about volunteer firefighters. I was a volunteer for over five years until family and other duties made me decide to unvolunteer.

Durng that time I was earned National certification as a Firefighter I and Firefighter II, was a light vehicle and heavy vehicle driver and underwent extrication training along with CPR and first responder training.

I do not think you could identify a volunteer from a career firefighter at any fire or accident scene. Your immature comments are insulting and derogatory. The PCFD was started by volunteers and as the city grew developed into a combination department. Volunteers keep the community involved and allow us an opportunity to give back and serve. So put up or shut up. What is your excuse for not volunteering?

I hope the volunteer pounding on your chest or opening your airway then you choke on a chicken bone meets your standard of professionalism smart aleck!

Your exact reason for leaving is why many others have gone both here and nationally. Family and other duties prevent people from volunteering their services. The time commitments to keep training and recertifications has drastically increased as well. We have lost nearly 20 volunteers over the last couple of years to surrounding departments for paying jobs. Times have changed and employers are not able to let employees leave their jobs 4,5,6 times a day to answer calls. I and others are all for volunteers to augment our force however it is time to staff our units with more than one person and stop putting the burden on them.

I agree Vol FF: Birdman is ignorant

First, let me say that I am not in the honorable field of public safety. I have no bias.America’s fire safety started as a wholly volunteer effort. My hometown still relies primarily on its volunteer fire department. Fire in colonial times was a very real and dreadful risk.

In attacking Volunteer Firefighters, Birdman/girl displays the only qualities he/she has acquired--- hate and ignorance. All of these posts are empty--- nothing constructive; nothing thought provoking; sounding no more intelligent than a chimp. We believe in freedom of speech and the price we pay is having to endure uneducated blather from someone who just repeats what they are told.

I say if someone volunteers they should receive nothing less than respect and appreciation. Thank you to the EMT’s and FF’s who volunteer and thank you to the undercompensated, career professionals in public safety. The silent majority does appreciate you.

Let me get this straight, I thought "ArmyMaj" was out of line suggesting that the firefighters didn't have a right to have a union and support the candidate of their choice, and that is displaying "hate and ignorance?" I suggested that our current city council would rather spend money on anything but safety and that's displaying "hate and ignorance?" But, you spread what..."love and intelligence" with the following:

"In attacking Volunteer Firefighters, Birdman/girl displays the only qualities he/she has acquired--- hate and ignorance. All of these posts are empty--- nothing constructive; nothing thought provoking; sounding no more intelligent than a chimp. We believe in freedom of speech and the price we pay is having to endure uneducated blather from someone who just repeats what they are told."

Right! As I said it is late and since I display only "hate and ignorance," let me try some truth. You are an idiot! I never "attacked the volunteer firefighters." Only a "Brownie" would read that into what I said. So you know what? I have a predicition. On Dec. 6 we as a city will tell your "hero" what we really think. And that is quite simple. We don't tolerate a meglomaniac who will lie at every opportunity, and spread...what was your term? Oh that's right, "hate and ignorance." So you know what? If you TRULY cared about the firefighters here you would have, like I was, been opposed to "ArmyMaj" who started his blog with the quote "I am glad that the military in not unionized" as he went on to chastise our firefighters for speaking in support of candidates who want to actually equip them to do the job. Now just so we are clear here, I am in great respect of the volunteer firefighters, but as I said before, in a community this size they should be used to augment. If you have a problem with that "plwindco," well, in the words of Bart Simpson, "BITE ME!"

OK, I will type slowly, since you obviously have a problem comprehending.

1. I think you ASSUME that I support Steve Brown. You are wrong there, I did not vote for him.

2. Nowhere did I state that firefighters do not have the right to unionize. I said that I am glad that I was in the service (which by the way is VERY similar to the public safety profession). Unions are great for companies like GM (stuggling because of high benefits costs to workers and retirees)and Eastern (out of business) and Air Traffic Controllers (They couldn't strike either, famous last words).
The fact is that when things go wrong at private companies, a small sector is affected.

3. As someone else pointed out the Union's political endorcements could actually harm the department if they back the losing candidate.

4. Look at the major issues that could negatively affect morale if the Union backs one candidate and the Volunteer Association backs another! Religion and politics, two subjects best kept out of the workplace.

So like the old military saying goes, stay in your lane, when you quote me correctly as saying I'm glad I wasn't unionized, don't ASSume I do not support the right of Americans to organize. When I state that there is danger ion Public Safety professionals backing political candidates, don't ASSume I "chastise our firefighters for speaking in support of candidates". As private citizens, some are residents of Peachtree City, but many live outside our borders and can't vote here, they can do or say whatever they want.

I am tired of you trying to twist my words to your agenda, I wish there were an ignore function on this site as I am sure many would join me in ignoring you.

Ok "ArmyMaj" you are right. You didn't say that firefighters didn't have the right to unionize. You just indicated you thought that they shouldn't. And you think they shouldn't support a candidate that will directly affect their job. And I sure thought you showed great disdain for them for opposing Brown. Let me post your quote so there is no mistake:

"I am so glad that the Army was and is not unionized. In my humble opinion firefighters should focus on their jobs, not politics, but again that is just my opinion. Unions by definition are special interest groups."

Hmmm...not seeing a lot of support for our firefighters there. Or did I twist your words? Bottom line, this is becoming old and boring. Let's just lay it on the line. Brown has repeatedly stated that our fire department is in great shape. Yet from what I have read, when they respond, they may not be able to fight the fire until a second responder shows up. This wastes precious time and may cause loss of life. It isn't their fault, they do with what they can. But Brown's distortion of the situation is dangerous. Doesn't matter how many calls they answer, only takes one. What matters is that with the amount of taxes, the size of our city, the size of our budget, we need to fund out emergency first responders before Assitant City Managers, Bridges to nowhere, Wi-fi at sports fields, etc. That's what we really pay taxes for, for our safety system and infrastructure, the rest is "fluff." Brown loves "fluff." That's the problem.

By the way, as one O-4 to another, did I type slowly enough for you?

We have been organized for over 5 years now. It is not something we did recently. It does not matter if the firefighters live here or not. We as employees are affected by everything they(elected officials) do or dont do. Yes we run the risk of supporting a candidate that might lose, however not supporting someone runs the risk of us going another 4 years as a non priority in his or her administration.
We are not a typical union. We recognize this. We dont argue over salary and benifits. Most of us joined the IAFF to support the 300,000 other professional firefighters on a national level to support safety and other critical issues that affect our jobs. Of course the major safety issue we fight here in PTC is that of inadequate staffing. YOUR safety and Mine. You say we should sit back and let the chief do the fighting. We do, we support him 100% however we recognize his hands are tied at times, so while we are off duty we continue the fight and take the message to the ones (elected officals) who can make the difference. I dont like politics however I recognize how this game is unfortunately played. I have sat on the sidelines and been dissaticfied for to long. Now I I and others choose to get involved and so far the elections have gone fairly well. Lets see what the next four years will bring.

PLEASE PLEASE accept my apology. I in no way meant my comment to come across like that. I have the utmost respect for all of our initial responders, especially those who do it as volunteers. My point was that the current mayor has painted a "it's just dandy" situation regarding firefighters. Yet the firefighters are saying we are short. In fact what has been written is that yes we can respond in a timely fashion, but can't begin to fight the fire until others (including volunteers) respond. This can result in a dangerous delay. Instead our illustrious mayor chooses to publicly say "all is better than well," when it looks like it isn't. I am in great support of our fire, police, and ems. I believe strongly that they are vastly more important than an Assistant City Manager, a bridge to nowhere, Wi-fi connections at sports complexes etc. That the current mayor has ingnored a problem of safety and has put out inaccurate rhetoric to make himself look good is an abomination. My reference to the "ArmyMaj" was that he thinks you and our paid firefighters should just "shut up and do the job" instead of speaking out for sufficient staffing. I was trying to draw an analogy of him having to count on unpaid volunteers instead of a paid military. Bad analogy in retrospect, but even our "citizen soldiers" the Reserve and Guard are paid for service. But as Iraq is showing, we need fulltime paid professionals so that reserve or volunteers would be used to augment, not as full time responders. So please accept my word that I in no way meant to slight the wonderful work of our brave volunteers. Only that the burden should not be put on their shoulders in a community as large as ours. We should fully fund all our emergency departments. An army major should understand that and demand that of our city council. Not denegrate and insult those who fill those positions and bring the problem to the public eye.
Again, please accept my sincere apology for the misunderstanding.
By the way, I am too old to volunteer and did spend a career in the military serving the country. If I could, I would love to work alongside you. I do truly admire your dedication.

My blog posting mentioned only the need for more volunteers to assist the paid staff. Where did you get the idea that I said the following, "Shut up and do the job"?

My reference to the "ArmyMaj" was that he thinks you and our paid firefighters should just "shut up and do the job" instead of speaking out for sufficient staffing

I do think that the "Chain of Command", i.e. the Fire Chief should be and most likely is adressing staffing and equipment needs to the City. It is his job, not that of a union representative

I do "understand that and demand that our city council adequately funds public safety.

I do not denegrate and insult those who fill those positions and bring the problem to the public eye.

Read my blog again, where would increasing volunteers do anything to give you the idea that I do not support the right of any citizen, even a union representative to express their opinion?

Stick to what I said, not what you think my motives are, you don't know me just as I do not know you and in the immortal words of Rondny King, "Can't we all just get along?"

"Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Wed, 11/02/2005 - 10:08am.

I am so glad that the Army was and is not unionized. In my humble opinion firefighters should focus on their jobs, not politics, but again that is just my opinion. Unions by definition are special interest groups.

I strongly support the PCFD, they are a great group of professional and volunteers that risk their lives for us all. That being said I wish they would cease trying to influence elections, but that is what the IAFF did without getting the authorization from their members."

"ArmyMaj," as I said, it sounds to like me you are telling them that they a) shouldn't be unionized and b) shouldn't speak out about their elected officials. They didn't support Brown because of the very reasons I cited. But you seem to expect them to simply "do with what they have and not complain." Essentially, I read that as "shut up and do the job." I stick by my comments.

As a former volunteer myself, I think the time is right for an all paid dept. I enjoyed volunteering and responding to calls but the TRUTH is that the volunteer response to calls is lacking. Safety is the issue, not politics. The new FF union here in PTC is not the typical special interest group. They have a right to organize and have a stronger voice collectively. Don't assume thier intent is anything other than attempting to keep YOU safer.

concerned citizen could not have said it better....thank you...