Santiago to be sworn-in as Chief of Toledo Fire and Rescue
Luis Santiago will be sworn-in as the next Chief of the Toledo Fire and Rescue Department at a short ceremony to be held at 9 a.m. on Saturday, July 2, 2011 in Chub de Wolfe Park. Santiago succeeds Chief Michael Wolever who will retire July 1 after 33 years of service to the City of Toledo. Wolever will administer the oath to Santiago as part of the ceremony.
Toledo City Council on Tuesday voted unanimously to confirm Mayor Michael P. Bell’s appointment of Santiago as Chief effective at the close of business on July 1, 2011. Santiago has 27 years on the department and has served as Assistant Chief since 2007.
What: Luis Santiago to be sworn-in as Chief of Toledo Fire and Rescue
When: 9 a.m., Saturday, July 2, 2011
Where: Chub de Wolfe Park at Huron, Beech and Orange streets
Available: Mayor Michael P. Bell, Deputy Mayor Shirley Green, Chief Luis Santiago
###
Showing posts with label Toledo Fire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toledo Fire. Show all posts
Friday, July 01, 2011
Santiago to be new Toledo Fire Chief
Press release from City of Toledo:
Labels:
City of Toledo,
Toledo Fire
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Fire Chief Wolever to retire
Press Release:
Toledo Fire Chief Wolever to retire after 33 years of service
Assistant Chief Luis Santiago to serve as department leader
Chief Michael Wolever has announced that he will retire from the Toledo Fire and Rescue Department after 33 years of service as a firefighter and four years as chief.
Chief Wolever joined the department in August 1978. He was promoted to Lieutenant in June 1982, Captain in June 1984, Battalion Chief in October 1988 and served as Deputy Chief under Michael Bell beginning in 2002. When then-Chief Bell retired in 2007, Wolever stepped up to lead the department.
Chief Wolever additionally serves as vice-chair for the Ohio Homeland Security Advisory Committee and has served as Chairman of the State of Ohio Medical Technical Advisory Committee, co-chair of the City of Toledo Urban Area Security Initiative, and co-chair of the Metropolitan Medical Response Team.
“As Fire Chief and Mayor, I have counted on Mike Wolever to be a leader in the fire department for 20 years,” said Mayor Michael P. Bell. “I appreciate his service and his dedication to Toledo Fire and Rescue and to the residents of the city and the region. The knowledge and experience he has contributed to the department have helped to make us one of the best in the nation.”
Also during Chief Wolever’s tenure, two major policy initiatives were accomplished. The long-term federal consent decree issued in the Brown v. Winkle case was dismissed allowing the department to move forward with more modern and widely accepted recruiting practices. The department also continued a move toward regional safety cooperation by merging fire and rescue services with the Village of Ottawa Hills.
As Wolever departs, Luis Santiago will lead the Toledo Fire and Rescue Department. Santiago has served as Assistant Chief since December 2007. He joined the department in 1984.
“I have every confidence in Lou’s ability to lead this department into the future,” said Mayor Bell. “He has proven himself to be a valuable leader among Toledo’s firefighters and a strategic incident response commander. I have no doubt that Toledo can continue to depend on a competent and professional fire department under his leadership.”
Wolever’s last day of service will be Friday, July 1, 2011. Santiago will serve as acting chief until a permanent appointment is made.
###
Labels:
Toledo Fire
Thursday, July 30, 2009
How is this a good deal for taxpayers?
According to the Journal of the City of Toledo, when city council approved Ordinance 373-09 (beginning on page 8), the contract with the Toledo Police Patrolmen's Association (TPPA), it also agreed to the following:
So, let's get this straight: the city is going to pay the union - not the members, but the organization - $25,000 to get them to drop a bunch of grievances? Since when did taxpayer money get to be used to buy off settlement of grievances - many of which the union never should have had to file in the first place?
And how much are we really saving if the city has to pay up to 9% (based upon income tax collections) in a lump sum? Police - and firefighters who have the same terms in their contract - are going to be financially rewarded if the city collects more than it estimated? Of course, there is the chance that the city doesn't collect more than it budgeted in income, but history indicates the unions have a safe bet on this one. However, a lump sum is just a one-time payment so there is no cumulative effect on the base wage.
How 'bout if the city, after balancing the expenses based upon the project income, REFUNDS any extra income to the taxpayers who paid it in the first place, rather than pay off the unions????
Oh - but the city hasn't yet balanced the 2009 budget. Even with the 'savings' from these contracts, the mayor is still estimating an $8 million budget deficit for the remainder of the year - with no source of extra funds to the cover the shortfall.
And if the administration's projections for next year are even remotely accurate, there is no money to pay for 2010 basic services, much less a lump sum for police and fire fighters.
Yet council approved both these contracts with no idea whatsoever of how they were going to pay for the terms they agreed to.
Are taxpayers just supposed to hope that the city doesn't collect more than the budgeted $145 million in income taxes so we don't have to pay out the lump sum? And if we don't get more than that, we still have an $8 million budget deficit to pay for, which is why Carty Finkbeiner is asking council to increase the trash tax and eliminate reciprocity for people who live in Toledo but work in another city.
What it boils down to is this: the city has no money, but if it collects more money than it budgeted, police and fire will get lump sum payments (of up to 9% depending), reducing the amount of 'extra' money that could be used cover the deficit.
And city council and the mayor think this is a good deal for taxpayers???? I think we got screwed...
Other provisions - Grievance Settlement.
The City agrees to pay $25,000 to the TPPA to withdraw any and all outstanding grievances filed prior to June 24, 2009 with the exception of grievances on employee parking, eliminating of the tax officer position, on call compensation/payment for fuel, sergeant-at-arms position, permanent shifts, and layoff grievances.
Tax Payment. A one-time payment will be made by April 15, 2010 based on the sliding income tax collection schedule as follows: if the 2009 audited books reflect an income tax collection greater than $148 million, the employee receives 2% of his/her base rate; if the 2009 audited books reflect an income tax collection greater than $150 million, the employee receives 4.5% of his/her base rate; if the 2009 audited books reflect an income tax collection greater than $152.5 million, the employee receives 7% of his base rate; if the 2009 audited books reflect an income tax collection greater than $155 million employee receives 9% of his base rate.
So, let's get this straight: the city is going to pay the union - not the members, but the organization - $25,000 to get them to drop a bunch of grievances? Since when did taxpayer money get to be used to buy off settlement of grievances - many of which the union never should have had to file in the first place?
And how much are we really saving if the city has to pay up to 9% (based upon income tax collections) in a lump sum? Police - and firefighters who have the same terms in their contract - are going to be financially rewarded if the city collects more than it estimated? Of course, there is the chance that the city doesn't collect more than it budgeted in income, but history indicates the unions have a safe bet on this one. However, a lump sum is just a one-time payment so there is no cumulative effect on the base wage.
How 'bout if the city, after balancing the expenses based upon the project income, REFUNDS any extra income to the taxpayers who paid it in the first place, rather than pay off the unions????
Oh - but the city hasn't yet balanced the 2009 budget. Even with the 'savings' from these contracts, the mayor is still estimating an $8 million budget deficit for the remainder of the year - with no source of extra funds to the cover the shortfall.
And if the administration's projections for next year are even remotely accurate, there is no money to pay for 2010 basic services, much less a lump sum for police and fire fighters.
Yet council approved both these contracts with no idea whatsoever of how they were going to pay for the terms they agreed to.
Are taxpayers just supposed to hope that the city doesn't collect more than the budgeted $145 million in income taxes so we don't have to pay out the lump sum? And if we don't get more than that, we still have an $8 million budget deficit to pay for, which is why Carty Finkbeiner is asking council to increase the trash tax and eliminate reciprocity for people who live in Toledo but work in another city.
What it boils down to is this: the city has no money, but if it collects more money than it budgeted, police and fire will get lump sum payments (of up to 9% depending), reducing the amount of 'extra' money that could be used cover the deficit.
And city council and the mayor think this is a good deal for taxpayers???? I think we got screwed...
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Carty will veto council resolution to hire firefighters in '09
Last night, Toledo City Council passed a resolution, 11-0, urging Mayor Carty Finkbeiner to appoint a class of 11 firefighters to help reduce overtime costs in the Fire Department.
The Mayor plans to veto the resolution. His response was sent to City Council and also sent out as a email press release:
The Mayor plans to veto the resolution. His response was sent to City Council and also sent out as a email press release:
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Would you donate to your local government?
If you were asked to donate to a fund to pay for a police and fire class for your community, would you do so?
A local businessman in Toledo, Jim Wheeler, wants to raise the $2 million needed to fund a new police and fire class because the city says it doesn't have the money to provide this service. (Note: these are not volunteer forces, like fire departments in some smaller jurisdictions.)
I have my own ideas about this and we discussed the subject last night during Eye On Toledo. But before I go off on a rant, I'd like to know what you think, so please leave a comment with your thoughts on the subject.
Thanks!
A local businessman in Toledo, Jim Wheeler, wants to raise the $2 million needed to fund a new police and fire class because the city says it doesn't have the money to provide this service. (Note: these are not volunteer forces, like fire departments in some smaller jurisdictions.)
I have my own ideas about this and we discussed the subject last night during Eye On Toledo. But before I go off on a rant, I'd like to know what you think, so please leave a comment with your thoughts on the subject.
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)