By LOIS THOMSON

Frustration was evident on both sides as members of Ben Avon Council and members of the Ben Avon Volunteer Fire Department discussed a possible consolidation of the Ben Avon and Emsworth fire departments at Tuesday's council meeting. Ben Avon firefighters told council that they are happy with the status quo, and see no need to consolidate or merge the departments.

In the spring of last year, council voted to form a committee to gather information and discuss the pros and cons of such a merger. The committee is comprised of members of Ben Avon and Emsworth councils, and members of both fire departments.

On Tuesday, Doug Silk, president of the Ben Avon VFD, told council that the committee was tired of holding meetings. He said the committee had a meeting in May or June of this year and thought a vote was going to be taken in September to make a decision.

"But it never came to a vote by this council or Emsworth. It's a waste of time to continue to have meetings. The councils have had everything presented to them."

Council president Lloyd Corder seemed surprised.

"I was under the impression that there was nothing for council to vote on because there was no specific plan." He said multiple options had been presented -- i.e., if there would be one department, where would it be located, can it be funded out of operating budgets -- but nothing was concrete.

"I don't think we have all of the information. In my mind, that's what working committees are supposed to do -- come up with a plan."

Council member Dan Herchenroether said, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original study was to show where we are today; but it raised more questions than it answered. The process is grinding slowly forward but there's nothing to vote on."

Nearly a dozen Ben Avon volunteer firefighters were in attendance, and one asked, "How much longer do I have to sit on the fence? I'd like to know which direction we're going." Corder said that council needed all of the input, and the firefighter replied, "You get the same report every month. How long does it take you to decide?"

Silk interjected, "We would like it to stay the way it is, keep our own identity. We had five new members join this month. We want to keep this fire department."

Herchenroether told the firefighters, "I'll say this as often as you have to hear it: I won't support anything that degrades the current level of service. If a plan comes out that says we have to compromise ser-vice, I'll say no." He raised his voice in emphasis: "No one is complaining about your service."

Council member Sue Weiss, too, said, "I love your service, and I'm sorry about your impatience. Right now there's no change for the next year because we have no plan in the budget for this." Corder agreed. "We're working on next year's budget right now-there's no way we can vote on anything."

Another firefighter asked council to consider the fact that the cost of providing fire services would be reduced next year because the borough has a consolidated loan -- part of which includes expenses from purchasing the new fire department building and part of a new pumper -- that will be paid off at the end of this year.

Council member Rob Galbraith replied, "That should be part of your analysis. It's up to the committee to do their due diligence to review and make recommendations."

Another firefighter simply stated, "I don't see why we need this."

Council member R.J. White said, "I would like to ask each member of council why they want to proceed. What is the goal we hope to achieve?" After a moment, Herchenroether replied, "To maintain the same level of service 20 years from now."

Weiss said, "For public safety, I think (service) should be comprehensive. I think we have an obligation to consolidate when appropriate. And to look at the long-term financial picture as well. I don't want people 50 years from now saying we didn't do our job."

"I'm with Sue," Corder agreed. "We have 800 homes (in Ben Avon). We don't need two fire departments in this region. How (is each department) going to pay half a million dollars for a new piece of equipment? And we'd have better coverage, better training. It's our responsibility as elected officials (to consider the option)."

White commented, "The overriding issue is, how do we provide better service to the residents? Do we skimp on public safety? We have a fiduciary duty and public safety to consider, but which do we value more? I'm not convinced cost-savings will result in better service."

Galbraith concluded, "Cost is a reality, and (the subject) is emotional. It's not black and white."