Riverside Info » About Riverside

Costly Firefighter Legislation - SB 988

(10 posts)
  • Started 5 years ago by KathleenRush
  • Latest reply from Catherine
  1. Residents should be aware of a bill that passed the State of Illinois House of Representatives on May 8. SB 988 would prohibit the use of part time firefighters in Riverside unless the part time firefighters were employed full time elsewhere. If passed, this will have an affect on our ability to staff our paid-on-call fire department. This potentially has a signficant expense implication and a response implication.

    We encourage residents to write to their Senators - Senator Viverito, Senator Lightford or Senator Cronin and oppose this legislation. An easy way to do this is to click on this link http://www.iml.org/dbs/legislative/nlView.cfm?ID=142&NLID=1023

    The Village would appreciate your support in our opposition to this bill.
    Kathleen Rush, Village Manager

    Posted Wednesday May 9, 2007 17:12 #
  2. Elisa
    Member

    Ms. Rush ~ Do you know how our firefighters feel about this bill? Their association wants to support it, given that an amendment includes allowing negotiations to be done at the local level. I know that the AFFI is probably more for full time firefighters, and part-time firefighters on the local level might not have the same concerns...which is why I ask about "our" part-time (but very valuable, of course) employees.

    http://www.affi-iaff.org/legislative.html

    Posted Wednesday May 9, 2007 18:59 #
  3. corbi328
    Member

    Our Fire Chief and Fire Department do not support the legislation. Not only would this legislation add significant expenses to our operating budget (one estimate was $1.5 million per year) but it would also require the Village to let go of many of our Paid on Call firefighters. I strongly encourage all of you to contact your state representative and ask him/her to vote no or to exempt small villages like Riverside.

    Posted Wednesday May 9, 2007 19:59 #
  4. Catherine
    Member

    Let everyone do his or her part to eliminate unnecessary expeditures.

    May 10, 2007

    [recipient address was inserted here]

    Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

    I write to you to urge you to oppose HB 988.

    HB 988 would prevent municipalities and fire protection districts from
    hiring substitute fire fighters on a part-time basis to supplement the
    fire force and fill scheduling holes unless the fire fighter has qualified
    for a regular appointment under the Illinois Municipal Code. The
    practical affect of this bill would be to eliminate the hiring of a
    multitude of part-time fire fighters, even if the fire fighters had
    received substantially similar training as required for a regular,
    full-time fire fighter.

    The amendment to the bill does not remove my opposition. The amendment
    makes the matter a "permissive" subject of bargaining, and therefore does
    not require the fire union to even agree to negotiate the issue. By
    refusing to negotiate, the union ensures that the restrictions over the
    use of part-time firefighters apply.

    If it were to become law, this bill has the potential to financially break
    many departments and fire protection districts because of the limited
    funding available to hire full-time firefighters, particularly within
    tax-capped jurisdictions. Quite frankly, it can be an annual struggle to
    come up with the financial resources necessary for the provision of public
    safety services. The ability to staff fire departments and fill shifts is
    an inherent right of locally-elected officials as well as one of our most
    important obligations. HB 988 as amended is a direct usurpation of a
    basic right of management and an encroachment by the state on an issue
    that citizens elect local officials to make. HB 988 as amended does not
    preserve local control and makes budgeting for municipal needs even more
    difficult.

    Once again, I urge you to oppose HB 988.

    Sincerely,

    Posted Thursday May 10, 2007 09:45 #
  5. HollyMachina
    Member

    They made a mistake. Because Riverside doesn't have a full-time fire fighter on staff, this bill will not apply to us.

    Posted Thursday May 10, 2007 13:47 #
  6. MikeT
    Member

    someone told me that if a certain amount of high density population in a particular area is hit, there is some kind of statute requiring full time fire-police protection. This person thought that 100 extra condos in the cbd would / could / might hit that threshold.

    If this were true, then this would be a hidden cost or impact to increasing high density population above the cars, traffic, congestion that have been brought up before.

    Anyone know the scoop on this, what the rules or thresholds are for a muni to have a full time fire/police staff (over and above the pending bill above)?

    Posted Thursday May 10, 2007 13:53 #
  7. Greetings,
    Holly is correct. I unfortunately reacted to the bill summary. The Senate is voting on the amended bill and the close read of the full legislation indicates that it will only apply to full time fire fighter departments. There are many combo departments that this will affect; several in our area. It is a bad bill - it takes away municipal authority to manage their fire departments, could have a negative fiscal impact and a service impact. I still encourage you to oppose this bill.

    I continue to be concerned that we are only one 'bill' away from this same fate.

    PS. There is no mandate on when a full time fire department is created/staffed by a municipality.

    Posted Thursday May 10, 2007 15:23 #
  8. mjvolo
    Member

    Our "Part-Time" Fire Chief gets paid pretty well as it is:

    http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=1479&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&S=1

    $71,000 for a 30 hour work week plus he is still full time at the Pleasantview Fire Protection District. When an emergency happens in both communities at the same time where does he go? To the full time job or the part time job?

    I don't know Kevin Mulligan personally and this is not an attack on him.

    It is pointing out the management and administration of our village replaced a FULL TIME chief that was making $98,000 per year with a part timer making $71,000, plus a $10,000 consulting contract for Mr. Bednarz even though he was eligible for full pension upon retirement and is fully employed by Western Springs. Additionally, instead of one assistant chief there are now two "Part Time" assistants taking home Assistant Chief Salaries.

    Where is the value in this set up?

    How does this save us money and improve services?

    Posted Friday May 11, 2007 10:58 #
  9. Catherine
    Member

    That's a good question, but from what has been said above, it looks as if it is a good thing we do not have any full time fire staff or we would be subject to the bill above, which would cost us lots more money.

    Nobody likes to begrudge anyone who puts their life on the line their pay. There is testing now for the police department. $52,337 to start. Also bens and pension (who gets that anymore?) Qualifications: 21 years old and a high school graduate. Police and fire have good unions. There are other village employees that are union also. The fact that we can't afford them is why we have only 2-3 cops on duty per shift in the village. Of course, it's not exactly the inner city around here.

    Posted Friday May 11, 2007 13:38 #
  10. Catherine
    Member

    Then again, a police officer just got shot in Hickory Hills.

    Posted Friday May 11, 2007 18:32 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.