LayTheLine

I forgot about this topic as well... over 2 years ago.
 
Here is an opinion about your question of why EMS would be more open to consolidating and not fire. I may not have this right but here is my understanding.
 
Ambulance services are allowed to bill for their services and collect Medicaid & Medicare payments as well as from private insurance companies. So there is money to be saved if you can consolidate the number of rigs in service and the amount of manpower on-duty. Example: Towns A,B,C,D each have their own ambulance service. Each town maintains 3 ambulances. Each town has 2 on-duty members with 2 back-up members for a 2nd ambulance call. If the personnel are paid, including the back-up crews when activated, it can increase your costs. Plus maintaining 3 ambulances both mechanically and outfitted with gear can be expensive.  If you consolidated those 4 town ambulance services into 1, then perhaps you maintain only 8 ambulances (4 on-duty & 4 back-up). When a 2nd call or 3rd call came in, another on-duty ambulance would take it and hence not have to pay off-duty members to respond. If it's an MCI, then of course you'd put all 8 ambulances on the road and call in off-duty members.
 
Fire departments don't charge for their services and can be a burden to a community's budget. It sounds good on paper to consolidate, but then you may have to spread out personnel to cover all the stations. Maybe Town A & B have 6 per shift, Town C has 3 per shift, & Town D has 1 per shift. Now, if all the towns are going to share the tax burden through a fire district you'd have to figure that people will want a certain level of coverage throughout. Perhaps the solution would be to spread out the 16 personnel equally to 4 per station. This would then necessitate a shift-commander for the newly created fire district. That isn't a bad thing, but if it's a combination career/volunteer department the remaining volunteers may lose interest as the responses are changed and the career staff ends up handling the majority of the calls by sending a piece from two stations (1 engine each) to a vehicle fire. The same with automatic alarms. Soon the volunteers would dwindle to the point of being an ineffective back-up force and the district needs to increase the on-duty staff (hire) to handle the call volume.  
 
There is something to be said for self-government where voters keep control of their own destiny.  Conversely, to not be open to sharing equipment and responses doesn't help anyone. In the end there are many issues to be considered. 

Over the years I watched and read about both Fire and EMS departments merging or consolidation and come to the understanding that this rarely saves money (at least in the short term<10 yrs) and only functions well when it's well received by the "employees". It's easier where the employees are FT paid staff, as the details tend to get worked out. Volunteer organizations have a harder time unless they all want it. I'd think for any mainly volunteer or paid call departments a period of shared training and cooperative buying, along with standardization would set a more stable foundation. 
 
We have both fire and EMS departments "failing" around our area, and generally speaking the taxpayers are not given the whole story. Too often the EMS or Fire Chief and personnel are less forthcoming about their shortfalls with the public, as it seems to admit failure rather than a sign that times have changed and the between run volumes, call types and mandated training requirements have placed a significant burden on the all volunteer/paid call systems.

So, I forgot I started this thread so many moons ago, and I seem to have failed to keep it updated.  Well, it popped into my head today while talking about another possible consolidation (with EMS agencies).  I apologize in advance for the long post.
 
The updates out of Victor, NY as as follows: On March 20, 2018 the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Fishers Fire District voted against consolidation.  One of the main reasons was that it move two of the career firefighters to the Victor fire house and could potentially effect response times to the busier Fishers area.
 
The Victor Fire Department, which is a department under the Village of Victor, convinced the Village Board in June 2018 to pursue separation from the village and becoming a fire district.  This would pave the way for the VFD to hire, at the least, part time paid firefighters to supplement its volunteers.  I don't have any further updates on this, unfortunately, as the process to create the fire district takes approximately two years, and there doesn't seem to be any other news on this subject.
 
BUT, what is happening, and it's big new in the EMS world up here in Rochester, is the continued growth of CHS Mobile Integrated Healthcare.  Originally operating as Henrietta Ambulance, they merged with Chili Ambulance and contracted with the Scottsville Fire Department, all within Monroe County, to become CHS.  About two years ago they expanded once again to cover Caledonia (Livingston County) and the Mumford Fire District (Monroe County).  And, just yesterday, they announced the approval from Greece Volunteer Ambulance (northwest of Rochester) to merge into the CHS system.  Now, this is going on at the same time that Livingston County EMS, located south of Rochester, is growing rapidly and now covering the majority of the county for both BLS and ALS.  Both CHS's and LCEMS's expansion is primarily in response to the closing of volunteer EMS agencies or in savior of closing other EMS agencies.  At any rate, both expanding systems seem to be eluding to a common theme; County Based EMS Systems.  Albeit, CHS is a not-for-profit company, they still continue down the road to creating a county-wide system.
 
I bring up these upstate EMS mergers namely to state that consolidation is happening, and at a rate that will continue to increase.  It seems to be working fairly well with EMS.  Yes, they still have their shortfalls, especially when it comes to staffing, but there is nothing to say that these agencies are going to fail.  So, why is it (consolidation) working so well with EMS but is so feigned when we talk about it at the fire department level?  I mentioned before that it was successful with the North East Joint Fire District in Webster, NY, and I can name another local example with the Hamlin Morton Walker Fire District whose consolidation occurred in 2013 (Western Monroe County).  Why aren't fire departments talking about the "C word" more?  Why aren't we talking about it more?  If fire departments are being requested to do more with less, wouldn't consolidation at least be an option or worth looking into?  There is solid proof that consolidation can be a good thing and have a positive outcome for the emergency services in our communities.  I'm glad that both the Victor and Fishers fire departments at least looked into it.  I may be disappointed about the outcome, but at least there was a motion of well intent.

Just wanted to share this website to anyone who may be interested. 
 
911dispatches.com
 
The site records audio of dispatches for a bunch of departments throughout Westchester and can text or email you the recording as soon as it comes in. You can subscribe to any department, and don’t need to be associated with any particular agency. 
 
They offer a free trial and the rates are reasonable. I’ve been using it for a while and it’s been working great. 
 
Just wanted to share with everyone. 

No worries. I had no idea you did it manually. Thought it was a cut & paste thing. I am a numbers guy and I work part-time as a copy editor. All good stuff, thanks for posting it. 

I look forward to this list every year. To see the workload & breakdown the stats can keep me busy for hours!!
 
Couple things I picked up on:
 
1) It shows Squad 18 as having responded to 120 runs all year. I am wondering if they mean Squad 8 and the stats for that company in December when it opened and then accidentally skipped over Squad 18. ???
 
2) Engine 62 in the North Bronx sees a lot of work. From listing to the radio and reading the rundowns, it sounds like Division 7 (North Bronx) had a very busy year. It seems there were many "All-Hands or greater" within 1 mile of the Westchester County border. The Bronx in general seems to get their fair share of work.
 
3) I was surprised to see that Battalion 43 in Brooklyn, only responded to 18 "All-Hands or greater". I would have guessed more than that just based on the numbers for the surrounding Battalions (42, 33, 58).  They are far below the 2nd slowest Battalion (47) which had 44 "All-Hands or greater".
 
4) You've got to love the City Island (Bronx) pieces that turn a wheel maybe once a day at best. But if they weren't there, along with what would be long-runs for any other unit going in first-due, you could lose 1/2 of City Island with one fire! It's a small area but the fire load is compacted pretty tight and you need to protect it. 
 
5) Battalion 50 in Queens was the busiest with 200 "All-Hands or Greater" and they are always up there which makes sense because they are so centrally located and if they aren't the first chief in they are the 10-75 chief for many abutting Battalions. 
 
That's my VERY UNOFFICIAL first glance impressions.  
 

No worries. I had no idea you did it manually. Thought it was a cut & paste thing. I am a numbers guy and I work part-time as a copy editor. All good stuff, thanks for posting it. 

I look forward to this list every year. To see the workload & breakdown the stats can keep me busy for hours!!
 
Couple things I picked up on:
 
1) It shows Squad 18 as having responded to 120 runs all year. I am wondering if they mean Squad 8 and the stats for that company in December when it opened and then accidentally skipped over Squad 18. ???
 
2) Engine 62 in the North Bronx sees a lot of work. From listing to the radio and reading the rundowns, it sounds like Division 7 (North Bronx) had a very busy year. It seems there were many "All-Hands or greater" within 1 mile of the Westchester County border. The Bronx in general seems to get their fair share of work.
 
3) I was surprised to see that Battalion 43 in Brooklyn, only responded to 18 "All-Hands or greater". I would have guessed more than that just based on the numbers for the surrounding Battalions (42, 33, 58).  They are far below the 2nd slowest Battalion (47) which had 44 "All-Hands or greater".
 
4) You've got to love the City Island (Bronx) pieces that turn a wheel maybe once a day at best. But if they weren't there, along with what would be long-runs for any other unit going in first-due, you could lose 1/2 of City Island with one fire! It's a small area but the fire load is compacted pretty tight and you need to protect it. 
 
5) Battalion 50 in Queens was the busiest with 200 "All-Hands or Greater" and they are always up there which makes sense because they are so centrally located and if they aren't the first chief in they are the 10-75 chief for many abutting Battalions. 
 
That's my VERY UNOFFICIAL first glance impressions.  
 

I look forward to this list every year. To see the workload & breakdown the stats can keep me busy for hours!!
 
Couple things I picked up on:
 
1) It shows Squad 18 as having responded to 120 runs all year. I am wondering if they mean Squad 8 and the stats for that company in December when it opened and then accidentally skipped over Squad 18. ???
 
2) Engine 62 in the North Bronx sees a lot of work. From listing to the radio and reading the rundowns, it sounds like Division 7 (North Bronx) had a very busy year. It seems there were many "All-Hands or greater" within 1 mile of the Westchester County border. The Bronx in general seems to get their fair share of work.
 
3) I was surprised to see that Battalion 43 in Brooklyn, only responded to 18 "All-Hands or greater". I would have guessed more than that just based on the numbers for the surrounding Battalions (42, 33, 58).  They are far below the 2nd slowest Battalion (47) which had 44 "All-Hands or greater".
 
4) You've got to love the City Island (Bronx) pieces that turn a wheel maybe once a day at best. But if they weren't there, along with what would be long-runs for any other unit going in first-due, you could lose 1/2 of City Island with one fire! It's a small area but the fire load is compacted pretty tight and you need to protect it. 
 
5) Battalion 50 in Queens was the busiest with 200 "All-Hands or Greater" and they are always up there which makes sense because they are so centrally located and if they aren't the first chief in they are the 10-75 chief for many abutting Battalions. 
 
That's my VERY UNOFFICIAL first glance impressions.  
 

Item 1: those are Squad 8's numbers. I mixed up 8 and 18. 
 
Item 3: Another typo. It should have been 48. 
 
They're all fixed now and thanks for nitpicking. (After a few hours of typing all those numbers I tend to get cross eyed.) 
 
 

A new stat this year: Special Units now have a column for All-Hands or Greater. 
http://www.fdnewyork.com/rnwindex.asp
 

Very good information GBFD111. But to clarify, which department would be covering your insurance? The last sentence isn't clear to me. Thanks

The department in which you are giving mutual aid to, not your original department 

Here's Cliffside Park's 2012 E340 Bruan Unit ID CPA1 One of 3 Braun's in thier fleet Cliffside Park EMS is staffed by full time EMT's they  sometimes run 2 crews to staff 2 buses  

Not sure if this is much help but I was a Mutual Aid member of a Volunteer Fire Department from 2009-2013 when I was in college in Upstate NY. I was already a member of another fire department in Westchester so I had to join their "mutual aid membership." We wouldn't pay annual dues, weren't allowed in meetings nor allowed to vote, but had to abide by all of the same standards as their firefighters, such as physicals, annual interior requalifications, etc. This was perfect as I was able to volunteer and able to serve the community of my college town and did not have to deal with any of the politics or drama from the meetings. As a mutual aid member, I was allowed to use my home department gear or would be issued gear from the mutual aid department. As for insurance, my understanding was that I was covered under the Mutual Aid departments insurance, similar to if you call mutual aid regularly from another department. 

Caught  Unit 5159 down at work last week sporting a new look I believe it’s a wheeled coach  It was donated  by a long time donor  Joseph Sanzari a local construction  Icon  in New Jersey 

Fort Lee Nj 2018 Ford Explorer  Chiefs Suv assigned to deputy chief  unit Id FL8

Dual membership is happening in some departments in Bergen County also with members that work for borough such as Dpw Some departments have the 10 mile radius rule too

I have mixed feelings on dual membership. My old department had a specific rule against it but that rule was NEVER enforced, including on some high profile veteran members. My current department has no such rule and in many ways encourages dual membership. That being said, if a member can manage to meet attendance and training requirements for two departments then more power too them. I know this can be hard, especially if drill schedules conflict. I have found neighboring departments willing to work together.
 
I had a member who was going to be listed as exterior by another town because she had not met their training requirements. I wrote her a letter listing her drill attendance to their training officer, even offered him copies of drill reports, he accepted the letter and restored her interior status. I have personally seen more people not be able to handle meeting these requirements than those who have. 
 
One local chief is against letting dual members vote, because he does not want members of other departments voting on who is chief in his own department., While I think that is mostly self serving, I kind of see his point. I also don't like neighboring departments using dual members to pad out their rosters, as each member can only be in one place at one time. 
 
As for legal and insurance issues, those may be defined in statutes. Workers Compensation is usually required for all members, these laws are probably silent on dual members. Here in CT we also have a law that allows an individual to volunteer anywhere statewide as long as approved by the chief/IC and they are covered by their home department (I don't have the exact wording on hand). Now that is a call by call based law that probably never envisioned someone responding to multiple calls in another district, but the intent is fairly clear. 

I volunteered with one department that allowed mutual aid members.  To begin, all of those members had to meet the requirements for regular membership, as in they had to work within the district 40 hours per week, and meet the required percentages for training and emergency responses.  They could attend company meetings, but they couldn't vote on certain topics or in certain elections.  The mutual aid members, if I recall correctly, were not required to help with fundraising activities, but they were encouraged to help out.
 
This was set up essentially to gain a few extra members during the daytime, when turnout is generally low during the work week.  The down side was that these members weren't always capable of leaving their jobs to respond to a call, which defeated the purpose.  But we did gain a few good members out of the program, and one of the mutual aid members was even allowed to become an EMS lieutenant (I don't recall what bylaw changes were made to allow that).
 
All in all, if your department is going to build such a program that allows firefighters from other departments to ride as mutual aid/assistance members, make sure you research the laws and statutes that pertain to fire department membership.  It's illegal in NYS to be an active volunteer firefighter with two different departments, and the mutual aid membership is a grey area: Are they a member of two departments?  Or are they simply riding on another department's apparatus?  Get your department's legal counsel involved in the research and planning phases to ensure your T's are crossed and I's are dotted before accepting mutual aid members, that is if you r able to launch such a program.  Talk to departments that have these programs, including the bunk-in programs for college students and young firefighters.  Hawthorne and Purchase come to my mind as departments to reach out to.
 
IMHO, the bunk-in programs for college students and young firefighters, which can involve mutual aid members, is a great way to gain and retain young membership and get them involved in a rewarding career, whether they remain a volunteer or advance later into a paid position.  This would be a great route to take if you're looking to fill some seats with dedicated personnel.

A few more pictures  Englewood Cliffs Engine 1 Flowing water from  the back parking lot  And Ridgefield Engine/Ladder 1 Ladder pipe up front Also Cliffside Park Engine 5 feeding a ladder pipe unsure witch one



 

All 4 companies of the Fort Lee Fire Dept were dispatched for Reported Heavy Smoke condition though out a large 5 story building located at 3011 Edwin Ave  Alittle after 4pm on 2/14/19 First Unit  on scene FL Squad 6 (onduty company)Reported heavy smoke from the front of  building Numerous Mutual Aid was called to the scene as well as to cover fort lee during the fire 3 Ladder pipes & 2 Tower Ladders & Numerous Hand Lines were set up and flowed master streams fire originated in the basement of the building and traveled the voids and elevator shaft  and went though the roof Trench cut failed but a brick fire wall kept it from spreading to the other wing Here are just a few pictures I took at the scene

I've never heard of it called mutual aid membership, but times do change. I had to read the question twice. What I have always heard it referred to is dual membership status. It was very lax when it started back in the day, but I suppose with legal ramifications so prevalent that policies and procedures need to be in place. I'll be interested to see some of the responses. 

I've never heard of it called mutual aid membership, but times do change. I had to read the question twice. What I have always heard it referred to is dual membership status. It was very lax when it started back in the day, but I suppose with legal ramifications so prevalent that policies and procedures need to be in place. I'll be interested to see some of the responses. 

I agree, NO