Home › News › Conejo Valley
Use of T.O. firefighting funds questioned
Consultant's report says city pays for more service than it's getting
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Conejo ValleyThousand Oaks residents pay from $5.6 million to $6.2 million more a year for fire service than what they get in service, according to a new report by a city consultant.
The study, scheduled to be presented tonight to the Thousand Oaks City Council, suggests that the Fire Department could close the gap by improving service in a number of ways.
Among the recommendations are increasing engine staff from three people to four per company, placing a paramedic on every engine and ladder truck, permitting fire captains and engineers to function as paramedics on engines and trucks, improving ladder truck service to the city and replacing Fire Station 33 at Lake Sherwood and Station 35 in Newbury Park.
Any service enhancements that are ultimately put into place will occur after lengthy discussions with the Ventura County Fire Protection District, which Thousand Oaks contracts with, said City Manager Scott Mitnick.
"There is no predetermined outcome here," Mitnick said. "Whatever improvements or enhancements that can be provided for the residents, the city looks forward to sitting down with the Fire District and discussing."
Services provided to the city are routinely reviewed, normally every five years, Mitnick said. But the last time fire service went under the microscope was in 1993.
In May, the council voted 5-0 to hire Ralph Andersen & Associates to conduct the study, which consisted of interviews of current and former city leaders, comparisons with comparable cities and information from the Fire District.
The study found the city's residents are "major donors" to the district, which receives a portion of property taxes. The district took in $32 million to $32.5 million in Thousand Oaks-generated revenues in fiscal year 2006-07.
In the same period, from $26.4 million to $26.25 million was expended by the Fire Department for its services in the city.
The study found that fire station locations and spacing are generally adequate and response times are reasonable, although the ratio of one firefighter per 1,396 residents is worse than the national standard but typical for a suburban city, according to the report.
Each fire station serves an average 7.33 square miles, which is within the national standard, but is the least coverage among all of the cities surveyed for the study.
The consultants also recommended that several policies be adopted, including the creation of more specific local community standards.
City officials cautioned that the council, not the consultant, will determine the direction the city will take. The council will meet at 6 tonight at the Civic Arts Plaza, 2100 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Any changes to service are expected to hammered out by April, in time to be worked into the budget.
Officials said the study will presented to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on October 23, 2007 at 4:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Could be just me, but seems like a bad day to decide to pick on firefighters.
Posted by 805m0mma on October 23, 2007 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, kidding Tom_Johnston. I'm in awh that this would even be in the paper at a time like this.
Posted by socal2310 on October 23, 2007 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
None of what they are discussing is in the hands of the firefighters. Taking this as criticism of fire-fighters is like seeing criticism of the U.S. government as an attack on Americans - oops.
Ryan
Posted by guerodrex on October 23, 2007 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is pretty classless for the star to run this article today with all the hard work firefighters are doing to save lives, property, and homes. Poor decision by the STAR!
Posted by Jacksprat on October 23, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not the Star fault, TO fault that this even came up. Give the firemen a raise, more firemen per station and take good care of them. They may be trying to save your house one day.
Posted by gary_lucia on October 23, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't see how this is attacking firefighter. They're recommending things the firefighters would want. 4 guys per engine is the recommended levels not 3, having and extra guy per engine would make their job better,and easier along with the other recommendations.
Posted by ash.rogers on October 23, 2007 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I certainly don't think this is a "slam" against the Ventura County Firefighters. The study showed that it might be possible for the citizens to get more bang for their buck. I am sure the Thousand Oaks city administrators will work with the Fire District and the Board of Supervisors to find a positive way to increast fire services for the citizens. I would think it is still cheaper for T.O. to contract with the Fire District for fire/EMS services than to start up a new fire department. VCFD is an outstanding fire department that provides great fire protection and emergency dispatching for Thousand Oaks. The ideas in the study are certainly good ones, but it might take time to put those suggestions into action.
Posted by guerodrex on October 23, 2007 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not directly attacking the firemen, but why run it with our current crisis throughout SoCal. Clealry this could have waited until things calmed down.
Posted by JohnGC on October 23, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Surely hope that this does not escalate to the point that the council decides TO needs its' own fire department.
Posted by Colorblind on October 23, 2007 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not a slam against fire fighters! I applaud the city council’s move to order the study to make sure the tax payers are getting their money’s worth. If the tax payers are paying up to $32.6 million and they only are receiving $26.25 million in services it means that there is $6 million plus left on the table to improve services to Thousand Oaks. There is room to hire more firefighters! I think this is great news and an opportunity for T.O's citizens to show up to the meeting tonight and demand increased services!
Posted by kpez019 on October 23, 2007 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I was a firefighter reading that headline, I certainly wouldnt feel motivated to work harder... yet, they still do in order to protect and serve us. When it boils down to that simple fact, I have to agree that this comes at a bad time.
Posted by Colorblind on October 23, 2007 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Agreed, the headline is misleading.
Posted by KC on October 23, 2007 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This article is poorly written - I'm confused - the district took in about 32 million, but the fire department spent about 26 million, so what did the district do with the remaining 6 million? I'm sure it got spent somewhere, as I doubt all 32 milion was at the disposal of VCFD.
Also, it states Station 33 and 35 should be "replaced" - replaced with what? Are they asking the fire department to spend more money? Because it appears they're doing the best with what they have currently.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on October 23, 2007 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My point was mainly that this is bizarre timing for any sort of swipe at firefighters, fire department budgets, or allocation of fire control resources.
No matter your point of view, the timing is terrible.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on October 24, 2007 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The timing isn't great. But yet it is good news. That they will be able to put more men on a engine and possible fire more firefighters full time. So it has its good and bad points.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.