Is Goodyear Subsidizing Other City’s Fire Protection? Contributed Article by “Goodyear Number Cruncher”

The following was contributed by Goodyear Number Cruncher who asked me to post it.

In a recent action by Council to enter into an IGA Agreement with the Mayor of Litchfield Park for Fire Services, Goodyear Fire Leaders patted themselves on the back for becoming a revenue generator for the city, if you read and subscribe to the  various blogs in the West Valley.

I applaud the efforts of both cities to reach agreement in the first of many IGAs that will come in the future; we MUST leverage all resources to reduce the overhead to manage these needed services, and reduce the tax burden on our citizens.

The annual value of the contract is stated at ~$500,000 is it a coincidence this is the amount that was needed to fund Fire Overtime?

How did City Management arrive at the value of this needed service?

Simple math, in the last census of 2008 posted on the US Census website there are 5,216 people living in   Litchfield Park.   For a fee of $500,000 or $95.85 per person, Litchfield Park can receive the full high quality services of Goodyear Fire.

If City Management can sell services for $95.85 per person (our cost?), should the citizens of Goodyear expect to receive the same high quality services we sell for the same rate?

Goodyear population as of FY11 budget report 64,554

Fire Budget for FY11/12  $11.3M (16%)

Cost for City Management Goodyear to provide fire services to Goodyear Citizens is $175.05

How can we sell services below cost?

The budget for Fire Services in Goodyear should match what is being sold to other Cities; in fact it should be reduced since we are now a revenue generator.   If so our Fire Services in Goodyear should be $6,187,500 vs the $11,300,000

Where is the other $5,112,500 + $500,000 (new revenue) going?


5 Responses

  1. It is obvious Goodyear number cruncher knows nothing about fire proctection. He obviously is not familiar with NFPA 1710, Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations etc. which establishes standards that Goodyear is required to meet. NFPA 1710 says the first company needs to arrive at the incident within 4 minutes and all companies assigned to that call arrive within 8 minutes. Fire companies should be within a time radius of 4 minutes to its covered area. That is why Avondale(41.3 sq mi.) has only 3 stations
    while Goodyear (111;sq mi) has 7. Goodyear Station 186 in Mobile is a Temporary Station, hence the large overtime accrued in 2009. Goodyear costs per sq. mi is $102,727.27. Litchfield Park is paying $161,290.32 per sq mi giving Goodyear a profit of $181,546 on the IGA .as noted by the City Manager at the June 14 Council Meeting.
    Obviously, Goodyear is profiting from the IGA and LP is receiving excellent fire protection.

    • This reply is from Goodyear Number Cruncher;
      I never spoke about Avondale
      I am not a firefighter and do not claim to be
      I did not research and read NFPA 1710
      I never raised an issue about Station 186, where the contract was cancelled but the 14 fire fighters were retained at a cost of ~1.1M, in lue of overtime not being incurred. Overtime was still paid due to an unbudgeted FLSA requirement, how was this missed in the last budget and just brought up in the last quarter of the year. This should always be a known factor when budgeting. Fact is, it was known, that OT would not be incurred due to the retention of the 14 firefighters from 186 but that fact appeared to be ignored.
      The fact is the citizens of Litchfield Park are paying $95.85 per person when Goodyear Citizens are paying $175.05 per person for the same level of high quality fire protection.
      It appears that with 7 stations it costs $1.61M per station on average to fund a station ($11.3/7).
      What was Litchfield Park paying to have their own Fire services, before the IGA was implemented?
      What will it take for Goodyear Citizens to receive the same services at $95.85 per citizen? The same price Goodyear Fire and City Management valued the service in the IGA contract?

    • It appears to me that Number Cruncher is right, Bobbie. It is the cost per hour that is important to the city, not the cost per square mile. If Number Cruncher’s data are correct, LP is getting a free ride on Goodyear’s tax payers. Another great job by Goodyear’s City Manager and our inept city council. LOL.

      If Fishbach goes ahead with his advertised talks with the community to “explain” things (perhaps a la Georgia Lord) then someone will have to be there to challenge him on this bad deal for Goodyear.

  2. Bobbie it looks like Howard is trying to lay the ground work to run for City Counsel so he can further distroy this City. When I asked him what is real agenda is he would not answer. (not true, see my email reply to Pete below) When I asked him if he was going to run for City Counsel he did not answer. (I did answer as shown in my email below) When I asked him if he supported the “Stong Mayor” concept of Ciy government he did not answer. (Pete did not ask me this question) I guess he has no answers.

    • See Pete Lamphere’s comment to me on this blog…
      Now here is the truth. The entire email correspondence between Pete and me is pasted below.
      Pete, you can’t tell stories in this day and age of emails….

      fromPete Lamphere
      toHoward Brodbeck
      dateTue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM
      subjectRe: [pebblecreek] Information on a Goodyear City Council person’s role in the union boycotts
      I have to wonder what your agenda really is. Although I don’t always agree by any means with the City Counsel I do not usually take it to the point you have. Are you running for office or what? Don’t fill me with the concerned citizen story either.
      Pete Lampherre

      fromHoward Brodbeck
      toPete Lamphere
      dateTue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:17 PM
      subjectRe: [pebblecreek] Information on a Goodyear City Council person’s role in the union boycotts

      After I heard about the boycotts, I told Steve Gilman that I would continue to pursue this boycott issue until he and the police wrote public, written apologies to the Hongs and GC and promise never to do it again.
      They have not done so yet.

      fromPete Lamphere
      toHoward Brodbeck
      dateTue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:21 PM
      subjectRe: [pebblecreek] Information on a Goodyear City Council person’s role in the union boycotts

      Howard this is not just the Boycott. There is an under laying factor and if you don’t want to share it that is fine. But be proud of what you do and not hid it.


      Sunday’s on the phone to Monday…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: