Public Perception of Regionalization/Consolidation

After some dialogue with Timeout, I went ahead and made the decision to start a new thread due to the other one being fairly well beaten and streched from its original intent. I also want to take this in a little bit of a different direction.

If you had already read the post on the other thread this will be a little bit of a redundancy, but I think it would be best to separate them and continue here.

I think that much of the planning and implementation of any regionalization/consolidation of fire departments should be done by those in the fire service because they are the ones that have the internal knowledge. I do however also think that the thoughts of the customers, the citizens and business owners, are also important. That's what I am seeking out. What are your thoughts, what do your family and friends have to say? I'll pose a few questions that I would like to see answers to.

What is your overall perception and opinion on the topic of regionalization of the area fire departments?
What do you see as potential benefits?
What do you see as potential problems?
How should a new organization be set up and controlled?
How should funding from the involved communities be determined?
What is your greatest concern when it comes to public safety in the area?
Do you think the service currently provided is sufficient?
Do you think that the current budget is too high, sufficient, or not enough?
As an individual what do you consider to be a reasonable amount to pay yearly for your fire protection?(cost per capita)
If you could only choose one which would it be: enhanced service or reduced cost? Why?

I fully understand that your responses may differ from mine and that is why I ask. I am also quite sure that I know what some of your responses may be based on previous posts, that is why I ask that you solicit answers from your family and friends as well. It may seem that some of the questions are very broad, but I wanted to be able to entertain a wide array of responses without limitting to a particular type of response.

Thanks

p.s. C, I know you had a nice response, if you wouldnt mind reposting to this or even adding on based on some of the other questions.

The potential benifits are more people to respond immediately. the problems are how do you split the cost? I think it should be set up with a board of directors similar to Med-Care and funded the same way. I think my concern is the response times to the out lying areas. I feel cost should be determined by benifit.

In towns like these it is common that the majority of the people have a hard time seeing or comprehending anything beyond five years out and for many it is less than that. The majority of people live day to day, check to check, and are satisfied with that and to place something upon them that discusses 5 - 10 - 20 year plans is too much. Regionalization has few immediate financial savings but a lot of increased delivery positives; in the future and on large purchases is where the majority of the savings come from. Bulk purchasing and administration is usually a second area that will reap some benefits but you are correct it is no longer us and them it needs to be "we".

I think all the benefits and financial savings of regionalization need to be identified and put into a brochure type format and circulated throughout both communities for at least a year before hoping for an improvement in support. That gives people the information and time to learn and "digest" the facts. It also gives them time to realize how all this will benefit them. I think that way it doesn't seem pushed upon them. We need to market this concept heavily if it is something we want.