What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? That question definitely has been asked before, but the answer isn't always the same. Sometimes the irresistible force wins; sometimes the immovable object remains unmoved. In some cases both the energy and the object are obliterated in a catastrophic event.

Ideally, putting these two into a collision course should be avoided. If that isn't possible, then someone better be ready to pick up the pieces. This phenomenon is beginning to occur in the fire service, too. Although the two opposing forces aren't as easy to visualize as a brick wall and lightning bolt, they're still very real.

The two forces are the rising cost of providing fire protection services and the level of service that's desired by our communities. As a result, it's become more important for chiefs to acquire financial planning skills. The cost increase to our infrastructure from inflation isn't hard to predict, but there's an increasing demand to fund incremental elements, such as salary increases and retirement and health benefits, which are much less predictable. In addition, changing tax bases and revenue streams, along with the redirection of funds through state and federal programs, are paralyzing our efforts to ensure the future funding of the fire service.

Says who? In some cases fire agencies are facing unprecedented cost increases as they cope with growth. Other places are so removed from the growth phenomenon that fire protection costs are not an issue because they aren't even provided. In any case, the problem exists whenever and wherever a fire agency is told to hold the line on the budget — or worse yet, cut it.

This column may be ignored by those former and fortunate agencies. It may well be read with dismay by the latter because it offers little in the way of resolution. But it should be of interest to all agencies that plan on being around in five to 10 years, for that is when a collision is likely to occur. Those experiencing difficulties today are just less lucky than others.

This next statement may aggravate some people, but I dare anyone to disprove it. As of this year we are spending more dollars on fire protection than at any time in the history of the fire service. Our industry — our profession — is a multibillion dollar enterprise spread across the nation as a fundamental franchise of local government. Some of these franchises are successful; some are barely making it; some are bankrupt. Yet we act as if we're all doing OK; just send more money!

If this is true, you might wonder how much money we should be spending on fire protection. My response is a question: How much do you want to spend? And then we're at a standoff. You don't know how much to ask for, and I don't know if I am willing to pay the bill. Therein lies the most fundamental reason why this problem is going to occur again and again in local government. We, as a profession, lack a basic answer that can be replicated from one area to another.

We probably will never have that simple answer. Even at its most basic level, fire protection may be provided by a local government — or it may not. For those that are, the level of funding provided to fire agencies ranges from zero to sums that are on the par with the operating budget of a Fortune 500 company. If we ever hope to have one standard for fire protection, we had best be ready to give up on the idea that it will accommodate all local options. That is both the blessing and the curse of our profession: We want to have it both ways, but we can't.

The lesson in all of this is that in the economics of fire protection, one size does not fit all. The second lesson is that several sizes are needed. The third lesson is that regardless of which size is chosen, you can't get more than you can afford. The fourth lesson is that if you don't pay attention to lesson three, lesson four is really painful.

Before we explore the implication of these lessons, let's create a hypothetical model for testing the theory that money can solve all of our problems.

Right now there are nearly 300 million people in the United States. They are scattered across 50 states in a wide variety of concentrations and configurations. You live and work where you want to — as do most other people. That's called “choice,” and it's an excellent example of what a democracy provides us with in the way of quality of life.

As long as we are fantasizing, let's imagine that everyone in the county really, really wants the same level of fire protection. They don't, of course, but let's pretend. Some places collect taxes to put dollars in a pot that can be used to provide all sorts of services. Although people want services, in general they hate taxes. Some places spend a lot to get a lot; other places spend a little and expect even less.

How much money could one population dump into that proverbial pot? If we were to assess $1 for every person in the United States, we would generate about $300 million for fire protection. For every dollar more, the total would increase. For example, five dollars per capita would add up to $1.5 billion.

So what are your current per capita costs for fire protection? If you know, great. If you don't know, figure it out right now. That per capita number is one of the best ways to predict how close you may be to judgment day.

There are well-funded fire agencies on the upper end of the per capita range. According to several different research projects in fire agency comparability, costs for some agencies are now in excess of $150 per capita. Let's close our eyes again and get the tax collector to ask for $150 from every man, woman and child in the country. We'll have a pretty healthy war chest: billions of dollars to be used to give everyone the same level of service.

Do you think it can be done? The answer is very, very complicated and goes to show why the one-size-fits-all solution defies resolution. Imagine a small rural enclave where 1,000 souls reside. If their government were able to extract $150 from each of them, they still couldn't afford much. In fact, those 1,000 souls would be able to afford only $150,000 of fire protection, which certainly isn't going to provide four people on-duty 24-7, unless that community can find 12 people who will agree to live on $12,500 per year in salary and benefits. And that's without any stations, apparatus or equipment!

In our magical world of forced per capita contributions, we couldn't afford a one-size-fits-all solution even if we tried. It's impossible. That's the economic reality of fire protection.

Lesson one is over; lesson two is over. Lesson three is now on the table. Imagine that we successfully convince our communities to weigh in with an adjusted revenue to provide a specific level of service. Once that happens we're then faced with a totally different need. We have to assure sustainability of that level of service.

This is where the potential collision can occur. Achieving this level of community commitment can't be taken for granted. Sustaining service levels shouldn't be taken for granted either. Yet we're all guilty of both. For example, when was the last time you expected to receive less in your budget than you had the year before? Yeah, yeah! I hear those of you who have had it happen to your agency, but I'm talking to those who are still living large with their budgets.

Let's slip back into our fantasy. What if I told you that you would be guaranteed that amount forever, but no more? The reason you will never be allowed to exceed that amount is because someone, somewhere, has decided that $150 per capita is our fair share of taxes. Our sister and brother entities, such as law enforcement and public utilities, have a similar stipend. The only way you can get more is to take some from another government-funded entity. In short, the pie is cut up; eat your share, but don't ask for more.

Based on this realization, you can draw some conclusions about local government past practices that are pretty straightforward. On average, law enforcement budgets are about 100% larger than fire protection budgets. Police and fire together are usually about half of all local government budgets. If this conventional wisdom holds true, after we receive our $150 per capita, the cops would want $300 and everyone else would be fighting over what's left. The property tax tab could be about $1,000 per capita.

Enter the reality of the U.S. Census, which tells us that the average household size in this country has about 2.39 people. It follows that such a family would be putting $2,390 a year in an envelope for the tax collector. With the national median income at about $35,000 per year, local governments would be asking for about 7% of the average taxpayer's gross income. Do you think taxpayers are interested in giving us more? Do you think that our brethren in government want to give up their “fair share” so that we can get what we want?

Now we are on a collision course. In the simplest of graphics, if costs increase and revenues are flat, there is a point where they intersect. At any given point in time, any given fire agency will be on the verge of exceeding the public's support level. That is a situation that a fire agency never wants to be in.

If you were in almost any business besides government, you would be an expert on supply and demand. Your average fast-food franchise owner knows that income must exceed expenditure, so what's the big deal here? None, if you don't have a problem. A great deal if you have a problem and don't know it yet. A really big deal if you're part of the problem and don't know why.

As you might have guessed, all of our fantasizing about funding is reality. Only the numbers and scale are different. You have a per capita figure that will change over time, and there are economies indicatively linked to it. My proposed solution to this phenomenon is based on a fire agency having a well-developed understanding of the economics indicated in a community.

I'm not going to talk about how much you have to spend. I am going to focus on how much you can expect to be available to spend. This decision starts with three things: growth, taxes and jobs. That involves property, population and priorities. More on that next month.

---

With more than 40 years in the fire service, Ronny J. Coleman has served as fire chief in Fullerton and San Clemente, Calif., and was the fire marshal of the State of California from 1992 to 1999. He is a certified fire chief and a master instructor in the California Fire Service Training and Education System. A Fellow of the Institution of Fire Engineers, he has an associate's degree in fire science, a bachelor's degree in political science and a master's degree in vocational education.