Chatsworth Could Be Hardest Hit by Fire Station Cutbacks

Chatsworth and a few other communities will bear the brunt of fire department cutbacks under a budget being considered by the Los Angeles City Council, said Pat McOsker,  president of the firefighters union. The budget, proposed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, could be adopted as early as May 16, McOsker said.

The head of United Firefighters of Los Angeles City told Chatsworth Patch Wednesday that, out of 106 fire stations in the city, only 22 would lose engine companies or face staff reductions. However, one of those 22 stations is Fire Station 96 in Chatsworth and two others are fire stations in nearby Porter Ranch.

The new cuts in the mayor's proposed budget will eliminate permanently an engine company in Chatsworth and an ambulance company in one Porter Ranch station.  In the other Porter Ranch station, a company will be reduced from six to four firefighters, making it unable to operate a hook and ladder truck, McOsker said.

In his weekly newsletter, Councilman Greig Smith said, "For several years now, four out of every five 911 calls to the LAFD are for medical assistance, not fire-related calls. But the Department's staffing and deployment model is still based mostly on fighting fires.

"[Fire Chief Millage Peaks'] proposal would use computer modeling to increase medical response while protecting sufficient fire resources. Chief Peaks estimates the plan will save taxpayers $54 million for the fiscal year starting in July 2011, and $197 million over three years. No firefighters would be laid off, the department would not replace retiring firefighters this fiscal year and the staff will be slightly reduced to reflect the needs of the plan."

But, McOsker said, "In some places it will be business as usual. We'll be there on time for people. In other places, like Chatsworth, there will be delayed responses where there didn't used to be and there will be impacts. Unfortunately, there will be property lost, injuries that get worse and sometimes lives that are lost," McOsker said.

The proposed cuts, which McOsker also described Wednesday afternoon at a press conference on the south lawn of City Hall, are unlike previous cost-cutting measures, such as rolling brown-outs that result, at times, in fire stations not being fully staffed.

Those brown-outs are fairer because they are spread throughout the city and no single fire station loses companies assigned to it. What's more, the positions remain on the books with the intention that they will be filled later when city revenues improve.

A memo to firefighters on the union's web site says the proposed cuts represent "a dangerous development" and declares its opposition to "all company closures." "Your safety and the safety of the people we serve depend upon an adequately staffed Fire Department," the memo added.

McOsker urged residents, and particularly those in areas that might suffer new cutbacks, to contact their city council representatives. And he warned those who call  not to be misled by explanations that the city is adding assessment companies and radio-reserve ambulances.

"It's garbage," McOsker said. "It's just a change in name only. It doesn't add anything. You don't have to close ambulances and fire trucks to achieve that."

Asked for an alternative to the mayor's proposal, McOsker said the city could maintain current staffing levels by using $10 million placed in the budget for service restoration. He said that designation intentionally conceals the use of that money for various pet projects and "is basically dishonest."

"That $10 million would actually reduce the number of brown-outs," said the fire union president. "More important for the residents of Chatsworth, it would mean that they won't lose their engine company forever and ever. And they wouldn't lose the ambulance company nearby, as well."