Larchmont weighs Fire Department merger

[Guest]

Wow, something prgressive. Hopefully this will work out and show other departments that it can work suceesfully.

Larchmont weighs Fire Department merger

By CANDICE FERRETTE

THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: April 3, 2007)

LARCHMONT - Fire officials are at odds with village trustees over the future of the fire district after a recent study recommended it consolidate services with the town of Mamaroneck.

A study commissioned by the Larchmont Fire Council, a governing board of high-ranking volunteer officials, concluded that combining the two fire districts would result in taxpayer savings and faster response times.

Meanwhile, Mayor Liz Feld and the Board of Trustees are seriously considering the creation of a paid, full-time fire chief position to oversee the combination paid-volunteer department.

"There is more administrative, budgeting and general oversight required now than there was 10 or even five years ago. It is unrealistic to expect a volunteer with a full-time day job to be able to manage a $2 million-plus department," Feld said.

The paid chief position would include a salary between $90,000 and $140,000, plus benefits, and would replace the current volunteer position. The rest of the volunteer leadership structure, including deputy chiefs, would stay in place.

The trustees must vote on the creation of the new position before the department holds an election for a volunteer chief Thursday.

Jim Sweeney, Fire Department treasurer and a former chief, said adding a paid chief is unnecessary, given there are already five paid officers, three lieutenants and two captains, to supervise the 15 career firefighters. "If you have 25 percent of your work force who are supposedly supervisors, you should be able to get the job done," he said. "There are only three people on a shift at one time."

Consolidating with the town's Fire Department would be much more efficient, he said.

Fire engines and paid and volunteer firefighters would still respond from the station at Larchmont's Village Hall. The historical and ceremonial traditions would remain the same, the study showed. The savings would come from more efficient deployment practices, paid supervisory positions, overtime and reduction in apparatus, according to the study. A merger of the two departments would also help in volunteer recruitment and retention.

"You hear that it is the most difficult to get guys during the day because they are all working in Manhattan," Sweeney said.

Feld said she was in favor of exploring sharing municipal services with the town. "But such a merger will require very careful and deliberate studies, which will take some time," Feld said. "In the meantime, we're responsible for providing our residents with the best possible services under the best possible management."

The talent of the paid firefighters would be put to better use, and contract negotiations would benefit from having a paid supervisor who is "accountable and accessible," Feld said.

Starting salary for a firefighter in Larchmont is $37,000. The average salary is $75,000.

The Larchmont Fire Council acts as the Board of Fire commissioners; however, decisions the council makes are subject to trustee approval, Sweeney said.

The consolidation of municipal services has been encouraged in the past. Most recently, Gov. Eliot Spitzer called for the merger of multiple layers of government in his State of the State address.

Larchmont has talked about creating a paid fire chief position for more than 20 years, Feld said.

[efd184 59]

adding the career chief i assume is the first stage?

how close is it to the 2 dept. merging?

[Guest]

Adding the career chief is NOT one single part of any merger option. NOT AT ALL.

This merger is not being studied beyond an exploratory stage at this time.

The career chief is a move that is regressive and has not been properly studied or discussed. It is not set in stone and if forsight and due consideration prevail it will not come to fruition.

[efd184 59]

sounds to me like its going to happen!

i hope it does then i may open the door for more career men!

as a side note PELHAM now has a paid chief

[Guest]

sounds to me like its going to happen!

i hope it does then i may open the door for more career men!

as a side note PELHAM now has a paid chief

←

I wouldn't go that far!

[Guest partyrock]

The one thing consolidation will never do is increase jobs. Good luck larchmont.

[efd184 59]

then its wishful thinking

[Oswegowind 17]

Yeah right...or than it would be expansion not consolidation...

This is smart from a taxpayer view...there are a number of areas in Westchester where this should be done.

[Guest]

More career staff is just not needed in many areas. Sorry, I'll be the first to admit when call volume merits a full time force. Larchmont does not fall into this catagory.

One catagory that it CERTAINLY falls into is:

Being absorbed by the neighboring fire district. THIS is where Larchmont belongs.

**Side note: This thread should be renamed. The merger idea (and it's just an idea at this point) is far from mature and serious talks have not begun on both sides. Lets not let speculation spiral out of control.

Edited April 3, 2007 by lfdR1

[Guest]

The talent of the paid firefighters would be put to better use, and contract negotiations would benefit from having a paid supervisor who is "accountable and accessible," Feld said.

Having had a few years volunteer EMS time in Larchmont and getting to know/work with the career staff i think they deserve at full time career chief who is, like the above says, "accountable and accessible." Larchmont isn't the easiest town to work for - the PD was without a contract for a while before i stopped vollying in 2004, and starting salaries and top pay are low for a town with that much wealth and benefits are "alright."

Edited April 3, 2007 by 66Alpha1

[TimesUp 148]

Adding the career chief is NOT one single part of any merger option.  NOT AT ALL.

This merger is not being studied beyond an exploratory stage at this time.

The career chief is a move that is regressive and has not been properly studied or discussed.  It is not set in stone and if forsight and due consideration prevail it will not come to fruition.

←

Any particular reason why this would be going backwards. Seems like moving fowards to many that have posted.

Is this an example of the resistance that comes with change?

[efd184 59]

the LT. makes a good point how is this moving backwards?

is it moving backwards because the vols. feel like the career guys would be treated different with a career chief?

the local gov. in the area is trying to create a JOB isnt that a good thing?

what if it leads to more career men isnt that a good thing also?

how many of the vols there now would love to get on the job?

[Guest]

I see where this is headed...

[spike2231 38]

this merger idea has been around the politicians for years politics doesnot belong in the emergency services at all thats what this is LARCHMONT is 1 mile sq. with more ems calls than fires about 7 to 1 i ll bet

the town has around 400 calls a year with out ems this merger makes aLOT OF SENSE but there is so much to do villages are governed by different laws then fire districts are the town of mamaroneck also has a service award program which lachmont does not have one

if you want to read the report look at lfdny.org its very interesting

good luck larchmont

Edited April 3, 2007 by spike2231

[spike2231 38]

oh yeah if you really want to read a good article read larchmontgazette.com nice article in there also

[x134 46]

We went through the same thing up here a few years ago. And boy was there a public out cry. All the district wanted to do is switch the titles of the Deputy Chief and the Department Chief. Of cource the public was worried about money, and the Volunteers were worried about the ballance of power. The pay would have stayed the same,and the Department Chief would have been available from 07:00 to 15:00 monday-friday. The Deputy Chief would have become the volunteer Chief. Another reason was that the call volume wasn't enough,and we didn't need one. (A PAID CHIEF CAR-1)

We do over 4600 runs a year Fire/Ems and we aren't busy enough? It will be interesting when this subject gets revisited. Good luck fellas!!!

Edited April 4, 2007 by drobison82

[FF402 133]

Copy of an email fowarded to me. Interesting.

Dear Mayor and Trustees:

    My name is ********. My mother lives in Larchmont (in Pine Ridge, and she had a fire in her building about 3 years ago). I now live in Somers, but I was a VAC and Town FD member for many years. I continue to be involved in emergency services in the area.

   I ask you to please think and move carefully on this issue of the paid Fire Chief. Only Pelham and Pelham Manor have smaller departments then Larchmont, yet have paid chiefs, and Pelham uses a part time chief position. Somers, Mohegan, Portchester, Ossining, Mamaroneck, Rye and Harrison are just a few of the  bigger, busier Fire Departments that use volunteer chiefs. Several of those agencies have larger paid staffs then Larchmont.

     Once you go to a paid Chief, you will likely never go back. Currently, Chiefs teach their underlings the job as they move up, and that will end with this proposed  change. In five years, you will have spent nearly 3/4 million dollars in salary (in Mohegan a paid CAPTAIN makes $120,000, no contribution to medical, and gets a take-home car). What will the tax-payers have gained for that? I also ask, has the currant system failed? I don't think so, and I certainly don't think it needs this expenditure to fix it.

   Your Fire Department goes to less then TEN fire alarms a week! the rest are EMS runs, down wires, stuck elevators, cars leaking gas etc. You have only about 3 real "working" fires per year. Individual members of your paid staff may go years without working at an actual fire. In the last 30 years, the number of fires in the US is down 30%- and that is BEFORE self-extinguishing cigarettes were introduced!

Does this level of activity  justify an additional full-time manager? No. 

    Larchmont has a fleet of 4 large fire trucks,(odd, since you only have 3 men to operate them) costing about $500,000 each, and each one lasts 20-25 years.

You spend about $100,000 a year on replacing fire trucks. You propose spending more on one Chief then you spend on fire trucks.

     Nothing says "community" more then a Volunteer Fire Department. Hiring a paid chief will alter that landscape beyond repair. It will turn your Fire Department from one of neighbors helping neighbors, into a government agency. It is a choice that if poorly made,(I hope) will dog you throughout your political careers. It will saddle your constituents ( including my fixed income mother) with a life time of unjustified expense.

   Signed ********    

Edited April 4, 2007 by FF402

[x134 46]

Copy of an email fowarded to me. Interesting.

←

What does not going to a working fire have to do with it? It is still a call for service. So Ems ,wires down, auto accidents , stuck elevator aren't calls? So after those three fires ,you guys should close the firehouse for the year. I guess the person that wrote this article thinks that the fire alarms and all the other calls stated before are not a big deal. EMS is a large portion of calls for some departments that do Fire/ems. You are not talking about adding Firefighters in large numbers. This person also states that his Mother lives in the area being talked about. He is right if this was done it would not go back to a volunteer Chief. But then you have a career manager that will not change at the end of his/her term limit. They will have a better grasp on the departments affected and not having to pick up where someone else left off. And if the new Chief is from the area, or currently a career firefighter or officer that resides in the area he would know the area ,and the people that reside there.That would be a great promotion. So to me that does say "community". So the first rig out of the house leaves with career poeple then the volunteers respond to get the other three right? If it were me I would want a manager that over sees the career people so the time on duty is well spent, and that person is available to the public on a normal schedule and to his Firefighters and Officers. That's just me.

Edited April 4, 2007 by drobison82

[TCD0415 26]

My first question would be, "Is something broken" that would necessitate a need for a Paid Chief in the Department? In my opinion, there would have to be a great need and a lot broken to suddenly add roughly $200,000 per year, every year moving forward (with the new chief position and backfilling the open slot) to the tax roll of the Village of Larchmont residents.

My second question would be, with a Roster of, I believe 14 or 15 career staff, they currently have 3 Lieutenants and 2 Captains which is 1/3 of the entire staff. How is it that in essence, changing one of the current officers title and throwing him a few more bucks will fix, whatever problems the Mayor seems to have with the department. Same players will be in place. If they cant take care of business now, how will a title change anything other than the tax bill of the residents ?

This is nothing more than an ongoing power struggle by the career staff to take power away from the volunteers.

[x134 46]

My first question would be, "Is something broken" that would necessitate a need for a Paid Chief in the Department?  In my opinion, there would have to be a great need and a lot broken to suddenly add roughly $200,000 per year, every year moving forward (with the new chief position and backfilling the open slot) to the tax roll of the Village of Larchmont residents. 

My second question would be, with a Roster of, I believe 14 or 15 career staff, they currently have 3 Lieutenants and 2 Captains which is 1/3 of the entire staff.  How is it that in essence, changing one of the current officers title and throwing him a few more bucks will fix, whatever problems the Mayor seems to have with the department.  Same players will be in place.  If they cant take care of business now, how will a title change anything other than the tax bill of the residents ?

This is nothing more than an ongoing power struggle by the career staff to take power away from the volunteers.

←

How many Volunteer Chiefs does Larchmont have,Assistant and Chief total? It said in the article that the Chief would be paid $90,000 to $140,000, how is that adding $200,000 to the budget?There also could be a cost savings if the Departments merge.

Edited April 4, 2007 by drobison82

[Guest]

maybe someone from Larchmont could shed some light on this, although I know they were told not to, but the biggest problem I have w/ this is that you can't promote from within and not have problems, thats why the military and even my employer transfer officers from the units they came from to prevent these potential problems...Also, these articles do not speak to the fact that this decision was not done with the input of current FD leadership, this would explain the adversion to this particular tack...and lastly, as others have pointed out 1/3 of the staff are supervisors right now and there are still problems...doesn't sound like a work-force I'd promote from

p.s. it'll probably cost more than $200,000...140,000 salary, benefits, pension and then promoting an additional ff to Lt, or Lt. to Capt...

[Guest]

The article in the Larchmont Gazette stated the Mayor wants to create a new civil service position of Fire Chief. Well if that's the case, more power to the Mayor and LFD. I'm assuming though the new Chief will have to take and pass a NYS Civil Service Chief's Exam. If that's not the case and the position is that of an appointed one by the Mayor, it's all for naught. The new Chief will be at the Mayor's beck and call and his title will mean nothing, except being another little puppet of the Mayor. Anything he tries to implement for the betterment of the Dept., that the Mayor is in disagreement with will be shot down, and if the new Chief doesn't like it and pitches a b****, well guess what, he'll probably find himself back on the line and replaced with the next batter on deck. LFD Career Guys, ya better make sure the position is a Civil Service one and the only way to make sure of that is demand a Civil Service Test to make it legite! Otherwise it may just be another made up Title within your Dept. GOOD LUCK anyway!

[JustSomeGuy 0]

It really angers me that people are AGAINST a Career Chief, I mean seriously are you out of your mind?

No offense to anyone, listen I admit I volunteer and am a career firefighter, a big union no no.

But seriously what is the operating budget of Larchmont I presume in the millions. A career chief needs to be put in power. I See in my volunteer dept that a new chief ever 2 years means no progress. A career chief will only benefit your dept. Also look at the illegal usage of FD funds in Long Island not to recently. When I read the article I think this is the major justification of the chiefs position.

They are not disbanding the volunteers, they are creating a position that wil be 100% dedicated to operating and progressing the dept. It shouldn't be a round robin type of position that gets passed around cause his grandpa was a fireman 100 years ago.

I cannot believe that residents are even sending in that letter of protest, If I was a resident I would be ecstatic that my village wants to hire someone who will keep me safe. I wish my village would pay and hire a complete professional staffed fire house. Unfortunately they do not, so I get to have some fun and further train myself while I am off.

I know my post kind of jumps around a bit, but I just wish people would stop caring about tradition and look at the fire service progressively, also I am pretty sure that everyone on this board is a working class citizen. We should be happy that the village is creating jobs, which helps our economy, and gives someone a shot at the best job in the world.

I am not trying to start a war but rather a discussion, I am sorry if you feel personally insulted.

also one more thing to add:

this qoute from the above letter

" Your Fire Department goes to less then TEN fire alarms a week! the rest are EMS runs, down wires, stuck elevators, cars leaking gas etc. You have only about 3 real "working" fires per year. Individual members of your paid staff may go years without working at an actual fire. In the last 30 years, the number of fires in the US is down 30%- and that is BEFORE self-extinguishing cigarettes were introduced!"

So why dont we fire all the career staff, disband the volunteers, and people can just put the fires out themselves?

It's the same logic you are using.

Edited April 4, 2007 by JustSomeGuy

[ec255 22]

I think the bottom line is consolidation of services is coming to all of us soon- how soon is hard to tell, but as taxes spiral out of control it's only a matter of time before fire service consolidation starts. Is it a good thing? I don't know

[spike2231 38]

well heres the latest about the chief in larchmont as of 9pm tonite the board adjorned the meeting with no chief appointed i believe besides the mayor didnot do her home work and the individual in question was not chosen by civil service rules no interview of a list after taking a test

plus not to start a fight but once you become a chief you are no longer in the union so you are now is a supervisor. Whats the difference if you get paid or not to supervise?

i have family in the Lfd career staff and they are not all in favor of this and the way this was all bought about its no secret that paid vs volunteer is a war thats been going on for years (almost as long as Iraq) ha ha

what Larchmont needs is what the town of Mamaroneck and the village of mamaroneck have already a professional manager who will manger all village affairs and expenses

[Guest]

Larchmont board skips vote on paid fire chief

(Original publication: April 5, 2007)LoHud.com

Larchmont trustees last night did not vote on a measure to install a paid fire chief to oversee the village's combination paid and volunteer fire district.

Mayor Liz Feld unexpectedly adjourned the meeting to next Wednesday night because of "delicate discussions" with the village's volunteer fire officials, who are against the creation of the new position.

The volunteer fire department will hold its election of officers tonight, including the election of a new volunteer fire chief.

- Candice Ferrette

[ajsbear 11]

What you have to look at is if you merge departments whaere are the savings. Reduce the number of rigs? firehouses? manpower? Will you expect better responses? Think of all the things that would be merged. This is not just adding a career cheif issue.

the amount of administrative workloads today is getting bigger every day. More paperwork, more standards must be met etc. If the Vol. cheifs don't have enough time to do all of this maybe its time for some sort of changes. Full time administrators instead of a full time cheif may be an option in some places.

As for the pay, 90 - 140K then add the benefits and it'll come close to the $200 K mark. That wil be an added expense. will it be a Chief of Operations or Department? Will the chief have to live in the fire district? A lot goes into this you don't just wave a magic wand and presto.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

The career chief is a move that is regressive and has not been properly studied or discussed. It is not set in stone and if forsight and due consideration prevail it will not come to fruition.

Still waiting as to how this move would be regressive. Not to mention "foresight" and "due consideration" have anything to to do with it, you would have had a career chief already. Putting someone who has to meet certain standards, through testing and qualification by law is far from being regressive. Sitting on ones hands with the same system that has been in place for countless years, with little to no oversight into training quailifications, testing, etc, that is the regressive part.

How is it that in essence, changing one of the current officers title and throwing him a few more bucks will fix, whatever problems the Mayor seems to have with the department.  Same players will be in place.  If they cant take care of business now, how will a title change anything other than the tax bill of the residents ?

So leaving someone in office, whom has other full time responsibilities to whatever profession they provide, with no additional or advanced training needed, when there is a problem you can try to get them on the nextel, or leave them a voicemail or go to the next person down in a similiar capacity will also fix any problems. How will it fix the problems...because the chief is right there, can answer questions and is directly responsible to whomever is his boss. If he doesn't do his job, he can be asked to leave/resign/be fired etc.

Again I have to ask one of my favorite questions...why does it work in other areas (which of course its not mentioned how many departments do have a career chief(s) in a combo departments which works.) but not anywhere else?

Why would anyone not want to have someone who's sole purpose in life is to look out for everyone's best interest. Knock off the bravado, the half-truths and emotional outbursts and try to sit down on your own and come up with a honest educated thought process about it. Perhaps you could actually work together and get a position and person whom would make your department operate better, more efficiently and as a team.

[Guest]

As for the pay, 90 - 140K then add the benefits and it'll come close to the $200 K mark. That wil be an added expense. will it be a Chief of Operations or Department? Will the chief have to live in the fire district? A lot goes into this you don't just wave a magic wand and presto.

←

I don't understand how 90-140 gets up to 200K. 60K in bennies. If they make someone from the ranks, they already have the benefits(healthcare, dental, etc...)What is the 60K for?

[Guest partyrock]

If they come up from the ranks then someone has to be hired to replace them. Now you have that additional member recieving health bennies. The big cost is pension coverage. At the minnimum you have to add another 20% when figuring employee costs. An extra 60k is excessive, but 30 to 40 would be about right.