More efficient firefighting

When a city has high taxes, a heavy debt load and a hard time paying its bills, its leaders have no choice but to look for ways to cut costs.

 One red flag for savings is in areas where costs appear to be unusually high.

 According to a National Resource Network report commissioned last year by Mayor Jorge Elorza, Providence officials have just that in the city’s $77.9 million Fire Department.

 While it’s well known that Mayor Elorza hoped to save money through last year's reorganization of the Fire Department from four platoons down to three, the legal objections raised by firefighters leave those savings in doubt. What’s not in doubt, however, is that Providence’s fire costs are excessively steep.

 As the National Resource Network report puts it: “When compared to other New England cities, Providence has among the highest Fire suppression” costs on a per-capita basis. Its costs, in fact, are “almost 20 percent higher than the median” for those New England cities.

 Among the reasons are Providence’s high minimum staffing requirements (the highest of nine cities looked at), and its deployment of more engine and ladder companies per square mile than other cites (more than three times the median for engine companies and more than twice the median for ladder companies).

 Protecting the public is paramount for any fire department, and the city cannot just throw safety to the wind in the effort to cut costs. But taxpayers do not have unlimited amounts of money; all municipalities must weigh financial and safety concerns when deciding how much to spend.

 The report makes several suggestions, including one that would be a good first step: undertake a “comprehensive operations analysis” to determine needs and put the city in a position to “better align” resources with those needs. In the process, the city can identify areas where money can be saved.

 Possible changes suggested in the report include: consolidating fire stations; eliminating fire companies; reducing minimum staffing levels; taking steps to reduce the number of false EMS and fire alarm service calls; reassigning uniformed employees who work in administrative positions to shifts that are being covered by overtime; and hiring civilians to handle dispatch duties.

 Suggestions like these, and others, should be looked at. We all want people to be safe, and we want our firefighters to be treated and compensated fairly. We also want our tax dollars to be spent wisely, and the report commissioned by Mayor Elorza makes plain that Providence is not spending its tax dollars — or using other resources, such as personnel and equipment — as wisely as it can. In a city with so many fiscal challenges, that is something taxpayers cannot afford.

This is the second in a series of editorials on fiscal challenges facing Providence. The first, "$2 billion albatross," Aug. 7, explored the city's pension obligations.