Author Topic: CFS Funding  (Read 6478 times)

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
CFS Funding
« on: September 21, 2008, 08:47:50 PM »
Rather than clutter up the Incident Ops threads, lets get into some funding discussion!

It wasn't that long ago that her in SA, brigades did have to fundraise to pay their phone bill, (if they even had a phone!), put fuel in the 25 year old truck, which they still had, because their community didn't have the capacity to raise enough funds to buy a newer one...

Some areas were lucky, and had good support from the local council, and the basics (and sometimes more) were funded.  Other areas had a very supportive council, but that council didn't have the capcity to pay much....

In the mid to late 1990's there was a Group in the Mid North, who survived on the same amount of money as one Hills brigade......

It is all very well to go on about how lucky SA is compared to other states, but it only because there was a lot of pushing done in the mid to late 1990's to enable a state based funding model to come through.....it's just that the other states are just along way behind us!!

Pip

In terms of funding models, it would be interesting to see how the budget of the CFS stacks up against that of both the CFA and RFS in terms of funding per capita. SACFS appears to receive around 95% of their budget from the Community Emergency Services Fund (This appears to be where the ESL ends up) with the rest being made up from fees/donations, etc, whereas both the CFA and RFS receive a high proportion of their budget (over 70% for both) from insurance companies, and only around %20 from Government/Councils. Does the money raised from insurance premiums in the East equate to what we pay in ESL?

No doubt the comparisons have been done... I would hope?
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline bajdas

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2008, 01:15:55 PM »
Shouldn't the funding be against the 'risk to the community' value ? Not just fire & rescue, but all emergency response risks !! (eg flooding costs more than fire to the community, but gets less publicity & thus emotion).

People even have a problem in defining what is a emergency response risk (is a tree down really an emergency or just a community service response   :roll: ).

In theory, RFA & CFA would have larger risks in certain communities for fire & RCR compared to areas of South Australia.

I think even accounting $$ against higher population & industry infrastructure value is confusing because companies provide own emergency resources (eg Roxby & Moonta).

Personally I think the funding is still based on the old method with some of the 'I am bigger than you, so we need more money' rather than the risk to the community. To change this to a more 'risk' based model will mean dismantling some duplication and empire building.

Go ahead & do a comparison to CFA & RFA, but I think it is wrong.

*** personal opinion only ***
Andrew Macmichael
lives at Pt Noarlunga South.

My personal opinion only.

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2008, 03:53:35 PM »
Shouldn't the funding be against the 'risk to the community' value ? Not just fire & rescue, but all emergency response risks !! (eg flooding costs more than fire to the community, but gets less publicity & thus emotion).

People even have a problem in defining what is a emergency response risk (is a tree down really an emergency or just a community service response   :roll: ).

In theory, RFA & CFA would have larger risks in certain communities for fire & RCR compared to areas of South Australia.

I think even accounting $$ against higher population & industry infrastructure value is confusing because companies provide own emergency resources (eg Roxby & Moonta).

Personally I think the funding is still based on the old method with some of the 'I am bigger than you, so we need more money' rather than the risk to the community. To change this to a more 'risk' based model will mean dismantling some duplication and empire building.

Go ahead & do a comparison to CFA & RFA, but I think it is wrong.

*** personal opinion only ***

MR. SES, did you happen to notice that this topic was called "CFS Funding" and was in the Discussion Board "Country Fire Service" ?

Did any of that suggest that this was about emergency service response state wide? Or had anything to do with SES?

I'm interested to find out how we shape up against our eastern counterparts. I understand that this cannot be a straight comparison as the CFA run paid firefighters and the RFS have no RCR or Hazmat responsibilities.

Your discussion of Tree down and flooding risks could benefit from comparing the funding SASES get, per capita, when compared to all other SES around the country.

I don't know how much more simple I can make this for you, as your ability in reading comprehension is obviously lacking. This has nothing to do with risk, or basing funding decisions on risk. I'm looking at basic budgets and where the money comes from to fund those budgets. From that I'm interested to see, comparing the three most similar Volunteer Fire Services in the country, how our PER CAPITA spending on VOLUNTEER FIRE SERVICES compares to that of Victoria and NSW.

Christ, can't you SES types get in your box for five seconds without trying to compare to what the Fire Service does? Not every discussion has to come back to how the SES could play a more prominent role and is being treated badly.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline bittenyakka

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,342
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2008, 05:08:15 PM »
I thought in SA they stopped funding some fee paid to insurers when the ESL was brought in? i can't remember so i don't know.

Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2008, 05:20:56 PM »
Wont be long before we start to charge for alarm callouts Mets style, What are the $charges nowadays. Got to keepem honest.
Just Another Filtered Fireman

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2008, 05:47:27 PM »
Numbers, not sure how you could get that info from NSW anyway, eventhough NSWFB cover most towns interestingly RFS cover the local airport for example.
It wouldn't be as simple as dividing the total budget by population of areas covered as its not that straight forward.
I do know that there has been an increase in funding of late with the local RFS getting a new shed and a rebuilt appliance, however NSW is a hard place to workout who pays what and how!
Anyway if I can get hold of anything useful I will let you know.
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline Pipster

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,269
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2008, 05:54:16 PM »
Previously in SA, if you paid insurance, there was a small component of fire levy, which, I think, went mostly to MFS (but I'm not really sure on that - can anyone else enlighten us).

Even if all of the funds raised from the insurance levy went to MFS, it still wouldn't cover the cost.

So in the metro area, the Government had to fund much of the MFS budget.  In country areas, the local councils ended up with the responsibility to fund the CFS in their areas....with some money being given to CFS by the Government - but not a lot.

When "Central funding" came in, in the form of ESL, it replaced the insurance levy that existed here in SA.

I understand that interstate, an insurance levy still exists to fund parts of emergency services (although not sure which bits!!)

As for charging for alarm callouts - under the CFS Act, CFS could charge for alarm call outs, but didn't have a legal basis to enforce that ...eg if you sent a bill, and the company / individual paid for it that was OK.  If they refused to pay, then there wasn't much you could do to legally recover the money.  Under the new Act (SA Fire & Emergency Services Act) there is a legal basis for charging for the attendance at false alarms.

Pip
There are three types of people in the world.  Those that watch things happen, those who make things happen, and those who wonder what happened.

Offline bajdas

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2008, 06:10:07 PM »
....Christ, can't you SES types get in your box for five seconds without trying to compare to what the Fire Service does? Not every discussion has to come back to how the SES could play a more prominent role and is being treated badly.

OK BYE    8-)
Andrew Macmichael
lives at Pt Noarlunga South.

My personal opinion only.

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2008, 07:16:48 PM »
Wont be long before we start to charge for alarm callouts Mets style, What are the $charges nowadays. Got to keepem honest.

It will be a good thing to charge for alarm calls i believe.  AS LONG as ALL FUNDS get put into the CFS Brigades slush fund ;)

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2008, 07:19:04 PM »
Numbers, not sure how you could get that info from NSW anyway, eventhough NSWFB cover most towns interestingly RFS cover the local airport for example.
It wouldn't be as simple as dividing the total budget by population of areas covered as its not that straight forward.
I do know that there has been an increase in funding of late with the local RFS getting a new shed and a rebuilt appliance, however NSW is a hard place to workout who pays what and how!
Anyway if I can get hold of anything useful I will let you know.
cheers

All financial information tabled in the respective acts, annual reports or the Services website. The CFA info came straight from the 'Funding' page on their website (nice and easy), the NSW info from both the NSWFB Website and the 'Rural Fires Act 1997', and SA info from the 06/07 CFS Annual Report as per the CFS website and then the 'Emergency Services Funding ACt 1998'. Its all out there to find...

Surely there must be a way to compare the per capita expenditure? We see and are told that X Service protects X amount of the state or population. Could this be used?

OK BYE    8-)

Seeya!
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2008, 07:53:55 PM »
WELL,Once a alarm site has cut over to the new system they are allowed 3 false alarms in a period of 60 days (i think) I cant find the paperwork they will be sent an account from SAFECOM and all money will go to SAFECOM.If you look inside a fire panel you will see that all CFS and MFS brigade attendance books are now in triplicate so that a copy is sent into SAFECOM... So once again the money is taken away from those that attend theses alarms....


Now when is the next choock raffle......

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2008, 08:05:52 PM »
RFS 2007 $168M, $153m grants & contributions total receipts $234,407m $22.4m from council,$123.9m insurance industry, $21.9m government (I know it doesn't quite add up).
Towns villages covered 1200, all bush areas of the state covered including council areas within Sydney itself in other words 95% of the state.
All of this info is straight from the financial report, so I guess its divide the number by 95% of the population of NSW - still not sure if that is a good method. As its not comparing apples with apples
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2008, 08:24:10 PM »
As its not comparing apples with apples

Yeah its also tough to compare without the RFS having RCR and Hazmat and the huge cost of CFA's paid staff.

Perhaps it would need a model far too complex to accurately compare. Ah well.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS Funding
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2008, 08:30:02 PM »
Yep pity - I did see a number talking about 658 FTE's in RFS but not sure if represented the total volly force or paid positions.
And CFA is way out there :-D
Anyway mate it was a good topic to raise.
cheers
Ken
just another retard!