Hobgood: "Turf Protection" Has No Place in Canton Fire Service Talks

Editor’s note: the following letter was submitted by Canton Mayor Gene Hobgood

I would like to recognize and thank Ms. Linda Breeden for a great job facilitating the discussion on Thursday between the city of Canton and the Cherokee County Board of Commissioners.

Ms. Breeden did a fantastic job coordinating the discussion regarding the operation of the northwest Canton fire station to be built and operational in 2015. I would also like to thank all the citizens who attended the meeting for your interest in our city. I would also like to thank Commission Chairman Buzz Ahrens, Commissioners (Ray) Gunnin and (Harry) Johnston, County Manager Jerry Cooper and City Manager Glen Cummins for their attendance as well. The input from both county and city fire personnel was also essential to our discussion and very much appreciated.

While I am sure each council member and commissioner left the meeting with a different perspective as to the benefit of the meeting, I would like to summarize my view of the content and outcome of the meeting.

The proposal under discussion was for the city of Canton to build and own the northwest fire station (which is underway and will continue regardless of the operation option chosen) at a cost of more than $1 million with the county operating the station at no cost to the city (operation costs are estimated at $750,000 per year). Both the city and the county would benefit under this proposal.

However, what appears to be a win-win, no-brainer proposal, can often as with this case, become entangled with turf protection, manipulation of numbers for the benefit of a predetermined position and tactics to delay a good proposal in hopes that by delaying a decision, it will eventually die.

The proposal, if implemented, would take the form of an Intergovernmental agreement between the city and county. Intergovernmental agreements can be for as long as fifty years. Under this proposed agreement, however, the agreement would be reviewed at least every five years and each party could decide to end the agreement with 24 months’ notice to the other party.

It was mentioned that our discussion and decision affected the fire fighters of the city and county and they were in a uncertain position. The fact is that nothing would change from a personnel standpoint. All city and county fire fighters would keep doing their job just as before the agreement. City firefighters would continue to work the two existing stations and the county firefighters working out of Station 9 — north Canton on Highway 140 — would simply move to the new northwest station along with their equipment.

It has been suggested that we should wait and do more planning for our total fire service needs in the future before deciding how to handle the operation of the new northwest Canton fire station. When someone has no legitimate reason for not supporting a proposal, they will try to delay and hope it will just go away. Everyone knows we should continue future planning for all facets of our emergency services.

But the fact is we will have a fire station built and ready for occupancy sometime around mid-2015. The county has needs also in that general area and must make some decisions now about a new station to replace Station 9. It was indicated that if the city is unable or unwilling to work with the county to operate the northwest Canton fire station, the best decision for the county would be to go approximately two miles up the road and build a new county station in the vicinity of Sam Nelson Road. It doesn’t make sense, especially for the county taxpayers to have two stations covering much of the same area. This is indeed a waste of tax dollars.

Additionally, it was discussed that if the city implemented a ladder company, this would reduce or eliminate any savings the city otherwise would realize from the county operating the station and taking a $750,000 burden off the city of Canton. This point assumes that no new firemen were going to be hired for our existing stations in the future, which is an unreasonable assumption.

A few weeks ago I sought and received information regarding the number of firefighters we already need without any consideration of a new station. Currently, for our two existing stations, in order to meet the recommendation of a national fire protection association, we should have 27 more firemen. I think we all recognize this number is unattainable at this time, but we can continue to add a few along as we can afford to do so. In fact this proposal would allow the city to add some of the badly needed firefighters while saving $750,000 per year operational costs.

I understand turf protection. But this proposal is so one sided to the benefit of the city and its taxpayers that turf protection should be put aside, especially since no employee will lose his or her’s job and fire protection in the city will continue as usual. Turf protection and control for the sake of control only has no place in this decision. Without implementing this proposal, we must ask ourselves, What will control and turf protection cost the city taxpayers?

As I see it, the proposed intergovernmental agreement would:

• Save the county taxpayers the $1 million, plus the of construction of a new Fire Station No. 9
• Save the city approximately $750,000 per year operational and maintenance cost;
• Demonstrate that the city and county governments can cooperate and work together when it is beneficial to the Taxpayer.
• Provide an zmbulance to be stationed (based) at the new northwest Canton fire station. While ambulance service will be provided by the County whether this option is approved or not, this proposal guarantees that there will be an ambulance based close to a community where there is a substantial senior population.
• Allow the city to add badly needed firefighters to Canton’s two existing stations with the money saved from the operational costs of the northwest fire station.
• Keep all city and county fire personnel in place with no change in duties. Canton would continue to operate the two existing stations and plan for expansion into the Canton Marketplace area, while the county personnel and equipment from Station 9 would simply move to the new northwest Station.
• Keep the same quality fire protection for the area that we currently have since the County Station 9 is the first out in the area and that would not change.

As the meeting drew to a close, it was somewhat unclear as to exactly what, if any the next step would be in this discussion. I seem to believe there may have been a general concurrence that the city and county would have a financial analysis as to the benefits to each.

I am concerned that this will just be another time to play with numbers. These numbers have been played with for so long that the toy is about worn out. It is clear to me that the proposal we discussed provides a tremendous financial benefit to city taxpayers while maintaining quality fire protection.

There was no time frame or date set for a next meeting. Can you see the can rolling down the road?

Photo credit: Shutterstock