Paying The Rent

[x635 4,066]

ALSFirefighter brought up a good point in another topic (Click HERE to view) regarding fire departments paying fire companies "rent" to house their apparatus.

Here was ALS's view, quoted from the above reference post:

I'm familiar with another area that pays "rent" to house fire apparatus. I think that is the most ridiculous thing ever and a scam in itself and a waste of taxpayer money. To pay a "fire company" "rent" from the district to house a fire apparatus in a "fire company?" RIDICULOUS! Build a district firehouse and use the money other then supporting company level activities...either that or charge the fire companies for use of district chief vehicles. If the money is going one way, then why not in the other direction.

I feel this point warranted it's own topic. I too absolutely agree with the above, and have heard of numerous fire companies that do such. What does everyone think of this setup?

[firefighter36 52]

I have to go ahead and agree with Seth and Alsfirefighter. There is no reason that a Fire District should be paying rent for a firehouse from a Fire Company. In my humble opinion it is not a responsible way to run a department, nor a responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

I have also heard of Fire Districts that "contract out" fire protection to fire companies. I believe that this happens in Lake Mohegan FD in Westchester and in Milan FD in Dutchess. I would say that this falls in the same category, and again is nothing more than legalized money laundering. (Sorry for such harsh terminology, but I don't think that such an arrangement is fiscally responsible.)

[Guest EFFP411]

ALSFirefighter brought up a good point in another topic (Click HERE to view) regarding fire departments paying fire companies "rent" to house their apparatus.

Here was ALS's view, quoted from the above reference post:

I feel this point warranted it's own topic. I too absolutely agree with the above, and have heard of numerous fire companies that do such. What does everyone think of this setup?

Ok, since i'm the one who mentioned it in the other topic first, Let me explain a little bit. Our town had individual firehouses long before ther created a "Fire Disrtict". Hopewell hose was established in 1912, Stormville somewhere in the 40's, Hillside Lake in 52', and Wiccopee in 54'. Each individual firehouse, chiefs car, propeties, etc. are owned by the members of the organization. Each individual firehouse recieves no tax money, or anything of the sort, the only income we have standing alone is from donations, fund raisers, etc. The "rent" as i stupidly called it, covers the electricity used by the charging systems on the rigs, the air compressor, the upkeep of the equipment involved in such, and a small portion of the taxes on the land and building. Its NOT used for "company level activities". We all give back more than enough time, energy and money to the District to bury that. Its by no means alot, and its not asked for, they could most likely turn around tomorrow and say they wont pay it anymore, we're NOT going to tell them to "Take their crap and leave"...... I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP.

Edited December 27, 2007 by EFFP411

[tdc202 0]

I don't understand how they could do that and keep a straight face to the taxpayers

[x635 4,066]

Each individual firehouse recieves no tax money, or anything of the sort, the only income we have standing alone is from donations, fund raisers, etc. The "rent" as i stupidly called it, covers the electricity used by the charging systems on the rigs, the air compressor, the upkeep of the equipment involved in such, and a small portion of the taxes on the land and building. Its NOT used for "company level activities".

Then why can't the district pay those costs directly? IMHO, that just makes things more complicated...who is accounting for the money, and who sets the price and how is that determined?

Can't the District just "buy" the firehouses for like $1 or something from the companies, then charge them rent for using the space for social activities?

Also, wouldn't it be better for the fire company's social activities and funding to be completly independent from the firefighting and rescue funding?

[NJMedic 96]

Hard to explain to fine line but from what I understand about the relationships between the fire district and the departments/companies here in NJ runs something like this. The Fire District is the legal entity that is obligated to provide fire protection to the citizens and business in their community. As such they operate as a level of government under NJ law. For the most part the districts contract with the companies to provide fire suppression in the district area. Nothing prohibits the fire district from buying their own apparatus, constructing their own fire house, and effectively shuting out the original fire company from responding. Inm my old company our relationship between the district (old time thinking, usually not active firefighters) and the company (very progessive) was not always the best. they had no problem reminding us they while we owned the firehouse, they owned the vehicles and equipment, and paid all the bills related to operating the apparatus, Ok'ed specs on new apparatus, and approved or denied firefighting equipment purchases. Our district also payed a "rent" (although it was never called that) to house the apparatus.

[Guest EFFP411]

Then why can't the district pay those costs directly? IMHO, that just makes things more complicated...who is accounting for the money, and who sets the price and how is that determined?

Can't the District just "buy" the firehouses for like $1 or something from the companies, then charge them rent for using the space for social activities?

Also, wouldn't it be better for the fire company's social activities and funding to be completly independent from the firefighting and rescue funding?

1. I am just a plebe, i dont keep a microscopes watch over who does what, the company had an exectuive board, trustees, etc, that keep a close eye on the accounting of money, who also work closely with the districts board of fire commisoners and their accountants. The bills, land, etc, are all in the name of "Wicopee Fire Company", i assume the district just finds it easier to pay the company and let the company pay its bills, instead of trying to change the names on accounts, or whatever. As far as i know, the price has been the same for years.

2. The only way the district could "buy the firehouse for a dollar" would be for 2/3's of the member to vote for it to happen. The House, which is rather large, and the land with it are estimated to be in the area of 1.5 million dollars, maybe more. Some of the men and women who built it with their bare hands are still around, and I doubt very much they would just give it away. If the ton decided tomorrow that they didn't want 4 companies anymore, and wanted to disband Station 4, The Wiccopee fire co., the building and land still belongs to its members, and if it were to be sold, the sale would be divided evenly to all its members.

3. The firefighting and rescue funding are completely separate from social activities and funding. Every member of the company pays yearly dues to be a member.

4.In order to be a member of the district, you must be a member in good standing in a fire company, you cannot just be a "District Member"

I really don't know what else you want me to say, because i am running out of ideas real fast Seth

Edited December 27, 2007 by EFFP411

[firefighter36 52]

" The "rent" as i stupidly called it, covers the electricity used by the charging systems on the rigs, the air compressor, the upkeep of the equipment involved in such, and a small portion of the taxes on the land and building. "

The Fire District and the Fire Company should both be tax exempt organizations. Thus, they should not be paying property taxes for the land/buildings they own.

Edited December 27, 2007 by mbendel36

[exmrvfc 0]

I have to go ahead and agree with Seth and Alsfirefighter. There is no reason that a Fire District should be paying rent for a firehouse from a Fire Company. In my humble opinion it is not a responsible way to run a department, nor a responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

I have also heard of Fire Districts that "contract out" fire protection to fire companies. I believe that this happens in Lake Mohegan FD in Westchester and in Milan FD in Dutchess. I would say that this falls in the same category, and again is nothing more than legalized money laundering. (Sorry for such harsh terminology, but I don't think that such an arrangement is fiscally responsible.)

When a municpality signs a contract with a local of the IAFF, isn't that "contracting out" for labor services?? In essence the municipality is buying its labor from a bargaining unit and staffing its department with such. The men may be members of the department but it is a line item in the overall budget along with equipment. A fire protection district contracts for services with a fire company or even another fire department, it is getting the labor pool and the equipment as well.

There are many departments that started because a local group of residents banded together to form a fire company that pre-dated the taxing entity that later became the fire district. These departments were funded out of the pockets of its members and donations from the residents. Since the Fire Company pre-dated the District, the Company often owns the house and equipment/apparatus. They in turn use the contract money to buy equipment/apparatus, pay for heat & electric/repairs to the station and basic upkeep. In my independant fire company, the FPD had the right (and they used it every year) to audit our books to see where the money was spent. This ensured the taxpayers were getting what they paid for. There was no "money laundering" and we had budget lines just like any other municipality.

[firefighter36 52]

When a municpality signs a contract with a local of the IAFF, isn't that "contracting out" for labor services?? In essence the municipality is buying its labor from a bargaining unit and staffing its department with such. The men may be members of the department but it is a line item in the overall budget along with equipment. A fire protection district contracts for services with a fire company or even another fire department, it is getting the labor pool and the equipment as well.

I believe you are mistaken. The employees are directly hired and employed by the district. They receive their paychecks from the district. The Union is not established until employees decide to form it. Thus, before that, they are non-union employees who work for the district. Once established, the union enables employees to bargain collectively for pay, benefits, conditions of employment, etc. Employees pay union dues, however the union does not pay the employees, nor does it receive compensation from the district. The employees work for the District, not the union.

The easiest example of contracting out services would be a local industrial operation in the Poughkeepsie Area. IBM firefighters work for Grubb and Ellis Property Managers, not directly for. IBM pays G&E, who in turn pays their employees. This is just like belonging to "Mohegan Volunteer Fire Association" as a volunteer firefighter, who contracts with Lake Mohegan Fire District to Provide Fire Protection. The Career staff in Mohegan work directly for Lake Mohegan Fire District, and as such, are not "Contracted" for their services. The contract between the Union and the District exists to govern the rules under which District Employees work.

Hope this clears it up.

Edited December 27, 2007 by mbendel36

[Doc 11]

I believe you are mistaken. The employees are directly hired and employed by the district. They receive their paychecks from the district. The Union is not established until employees decide to form it. Thus, before that, they are non-union employees who work for the district. Once established, the union enables employees to bargain collectively for pay, benefits, conditions of employment, etc. Employees pay union dues, however the union does not pay the employees, nor does it receive compensation from the district. The employees work for the District, not the union.

The easiest example of contracting out services would be a local industrial operation in the Poughkeepsie Area. IBM firefighters work for Grubb and Ellis Property Managers, not directly for. IBM pays G&E, who in turn pays their employees. This is just like belonging to "Mohegan Volunteer Fire Association" as a volunteer firefighter, who contracts with Lake Mohegan Fire District to Provide Fire Protection. The Career staff in Mohegan work directly for Lake Mohegan Fire District, and as such, are not "Contracted" for their services. The contract between the Union and the District exists to govern the rules under which District Employees work.

Hope this clears it up.

That seems to sum it up pretty well.

As for why it makes sense to keep "paying the rent" to the fire company... consider this. The Fire Company owned building is a building like any other - it is the owned property of an individual - in this case a corporation - legally it is as if you or I owned the building. It would be well within the rights of the owners of the building, "the fire company" to not sell the fire station they own to the District if the District wanted to buy it but the company did not want to sell. The District has no more rights to the building than, say, the tenents do to their landlord's apartment building (only so far as the lease contract specifies). Even if the District did disband the company (in itself a legally complicated proposition ), they assume no ownership of the company property. The company would liquidate it's property however its Board of Directors saw fit. So, basically, "getting the fire station" would only be on the mutually agreed terms between the company and the district with both acting to protect their best interests. Of course the company would want fair market value to maximize return of equity to the "shareholders" (the members). If sale to Wal-mart or Redl Associates was in their interests, so be it. So, the district would be faced with the proposition of buying a million or more dollars of real estate for which they would either have to tap a reserve account (now consider the state mandated legal restraints for reserve funds dispursal), or float a bond - requiring a taxpayer referendum. In the case of East Fishkill, there is a scarcity of available real estate in strategic locations that isn't being sold at top dollar for retail / commercial tenancy, so replacement of the company owned facilities would be a proposition on the order of tens-of-millions of dollars, between property acquisition and the Wick's Law compliant building of fully ADA compliant facilities. They would be trying to do this at a time when voters are overwhelmingly rejecting capital improvement propositions at face value. In the end, it is more financially reasonable to simply "pay the rent", allow the company to bear the responsibility of maintaining THEIR building(s), hold the "landlord" to an appropriate lease contract and demand the annual auditing of the company books by a district approved certified public accountant at cost to the fire company (or some such due diligence oversight).

Edited December 28, 2007 by Doc

[Guest EFFP411]

That seems to sum it up pretty well.

As for why it makes sense to keep "paying the rent" to the fire company... consider this. The Fire Company owned building is a building like any other - it is the owned property of an individual - in this case a corporation - legally it is as if you or I owned the building. It would be well within the rights of the owners of the building, "the fire company" to not sell the fire station they own to the District if the District wanted to buy it but the company did not want to sell. The District has no more rights to the building than, say, the tenents do to their landlord's apartment building (only so far as the lease contract specifies). Even if the District did disband the company (in itself a legally complicated proposition ), they assume no ownership of the company property. The company would liquidate it's property however its Board of Directors saw fit. So, basically, "getting the fire station" would only be on the mutually agreed terms between the company and the district with both acting to protect their best interests. Of course the company would want fair market value to maximize return of equity to the "shareholders" (the members). If sale to Wal-mart or Redl Associates was in their interests, so be it. So, the district would be faced with the proposition of buying a million or more dollars of real estate for which they would either have to tap a reserve account (now consider the state mandated legal restraints for reserve funds dispursal), or float a bond - requiring a taxpayer referendum. In the case of East Fishkill, there is a scarcity of available real estate in strategic locations that isn't being sold at top dollar for retail / commercial tenancy, so replacement of the company owned facilities would be a proposition on the order of tens-of-millions of dollars, between property acquisition and the Wick's Law compliant building of fully ADA compliant facilities. They would be trying to do this at a time when voters are overwhelmingly rejecting capital improvement propositions at face value. In the end, it is more financially reasonable to simply "pay the rent", allow the company to bear the responsibility of maintaining THEIR building(s), hold the "landlord" to an appropriate lease contract and demand the annual auditing of the company books by a district approved certified public accountant at cost to the fire company (or some such due diligence oversight).

Thanks alot Doc, for putting in words what i was trying and failing to properly explain on no sleep.

[firefighter36 52]

Doc, thanks for an interesting point of view. While I still do not agree, I like to see the how and why behind things.

[trauma74 111]

Ask the Commissioners of the Vails Gate Fire District which covers a large portion of the Town of New Windsor and a small area of the Town of Cornwall. They pay a fee to the Vails Gate Fire Company to house their apparatus there. The "fire company" (the members of the company) own the firehouse and therefore govern the use of the house. In my Fire Department in Chester, NY the The Chester Fire District owns the buildings and all of the firehouses and they govern the use of the houses.

[Guest]

I have to go ahead and agree with Seth and Alsfirefighter. There is no reason that a Fire District should be paying rent for a firehouse from a Fire Company. In my humble opinion it is not a responsible way to run a department, nor a responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

I agree with Mark. A local department pays rent to 2 of the houses that house their equipment. 1 of the volunteer houses in this department gets equal to, if not better $$ per square foot than rental space at the local mall. For the $$ spent, we could have a mortgage and put equity into a building that could house the same equipment and not have to pay a portion of the utilities (utility bills are being divided up between the District and Fire Company because they have career members provided by the district to cover the response area during the day). I would think that having the piece of mind that your family and property are being protected while your at work should be payment enough.

Edited December 31, 2007 by AFD68

[Danger 160]

Not to mention it would actually have enough room to operate...

tradition, ego, kingdoms...

[Guest alsfirefighter]

When a municpality signs a contract with a local of the IAFF, isn't that "contracting out" for labor services?? In essence the municipality is buying its labor from a bargaining unit and staffing its department with such. The men may be members of the department but it is a line item in the overall budget along with equipment. A fire protection district contracts for services with a fire company or even another fire department, it is getting the labor pool and the equipment as well.

Nice try at a good stretch...mbendel summed it up pretty nice...but my municipality doesn't send a check to the International, I work for the municipality. I pay dues to the IAFF and they are there to ensure that I get a fair shake with the one I work for.

Doc, very good summary. While I also still don't agree with it, I can see a little more on how it shakes out in some cases. I'm more referring to those who simply own a firehouse or have had a firehouse built and moved out of a district/municipal firehouse and charge rent for an apparatus that they do not own nor buy with their funds, do any equipment maintenance on it whatsoever. My honest answer to that is, pull the truck out and give me the amount that was for rent and I'll put it to use for either an additional staff member or equipment that is needed, needs replacement or can effect that safety of personnel operating.

[firefighter36 52]

AFD, wouldn't one of those company owned stations you referred to also have an annex with a club house, and soon, a pool? If so, where are the priorities? While I am not opposed to a social organization having a clubhouse, annex, etc. How does this look to taxpayers, considering one could reason that tax money derived from "renting the firehouse" could be used for such construction endeavors?

[Guest]

AFD, wouldn't one of those company owned stations you referred to also have an annex with a club house, and soon, a pool? If so, where are the priorities? While I am not opposed to a social organization having a clubhouse, annex, etc. How does this look to taxpayers, considering one could reason that tax money derived from "renting the firehouse" could be used for such construction endeavors?

LOL, Mark, how did you know? Yeah, it's amazing isn't it? And for the amount that they actually respond it's criminal!! We could have some nice firehouse that could house all of the equipment and at least 4 career Firefighters/Medics. What a concept, actually manning the south end the way it should be. What is also criminal is that the taxpayer is unaware that they do not get the same service as the guy that lives in the north end but pay the same tax rate per thousand. I wouldn't want to live on the south end and have a medical emergency (or fire for that matter) at night. I'm just waiting for the lawsuit!!!!! It's also funny that 4 out of 5 of our commisioners are active volunteers for the district. Conflict of interest?

Edited January 3, 2008 by AFD68

[Guest]

Conflict of interest?

It has to be a "Conflict of interest" how can a commissioner make fair decisions when they are an ACTIVE AND SOCIAL member of a "fire company" getting rent? You have district equipment in a firehouse being "rented" so how does the public or district know if they acting in the interest of the company or public? They would never be in favor or pulling equipment or changing staffing, unless they would get more money of course....... It's just surprising there's nothing in place for something like this. I think the districts or departments should be able to charge or gain credit towards "rent" when equipment DOESN'T respond!!!!!!

[helicopper 1,050]

It is just a shell game. It's like municipal agencies "billing" each other for services. It's so they can keep their own budgets low and run up the budget of whoever uses their services.

It is absurd and irresponsible that agencies have long-standing (with no end in sight) policies of using tax dollars to pay rent for a firehouse. Buy it, build your own, or work something else out. If tax dollars are being used to pay rent and then that money is going to the social fund of a "company" and are not being used for firematic activities I, as a taxpayer, have a real issue with that.

Taxes are high enough without paying rent (at a commercial market rate, no less???) every month. At least a mortgage gets paid off over time.

[NWFDMedic 58]

ALSFirefighter brought up a good point in another topic (Click HERE to view) regarding fire departments paying fire companies "rent" to house their apparatus.

I feel this point warranted it's own topic. I too absolutely agree with the above, and have heard of numerous fire companies that do such. What does everyone think of this setup?

It's a simple concept. The fire company owns the building and the fire district pays rent for the portions of the building operated by the district. It works pretty well as long as both parties are responsible to the community but it COULD leave the door open for corruption. For a volunteer department, the disadvantage of having the district own the building is that you could have 5 non-members controlling what you can and cannot do in your firehouse (limiting access at night, banning alcohol on premises, etc.). The major advantage to the district owning the building is that the membership would not be stuck making major repairs.

Up until this year in New Windsor we had owned our firehouse, but we voted to turn it over to the district for a number of reasons (basically to facilitate building our new station). We never charged a rate to the commissioners that was out of line; if you looked at our budgets the amount of money spent on the building was actually more than we received in rent (as it should be, because the commissioners only rent a certain percentage of the building). A few things have changed since the district has taken the building over, but both parties are being cooperative.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

the disadvantage of having the district own the building is that you could have 5 non-members controlling what you can and cannot do in your firehouse (limiting access at night, banning alcohol on premises, etc.).

In actuality it really isn't "your firehouse" I also tell a lot of other firefighters I'm around its not "your truck." Its your customers' apparatus...its the communities firehouse. And if anything is limited its usually in response to an incident that's occurred. We all know that that nothing is harder to kill then tradition in the northeast.

Those 5 members are elected fire district officials. I would vote for any of the 5 that would ban alcohol on premise. Would probaby even try to vote multiple times if I could get away with it.

NWFD's post shows has it can actually work and how it should work in the right way. The rent went to building upkeep. That makes sense to me and the fact that they can easily show it on paper is the correct way to justify such actions. Great post bro!

But we all know there are some out there that its way beyond that!

[NWFDMedic 58]

In actuality it really isn't "your firehouse" I also tell a lot of other firefighters I'm around its not "your truck." Its your customers' apparatus...its the communities firehouse. And if anything is limited its usually in response to an incident that's occurred. We all know that that nothing is harder to kill then tradition in the northeast.

Those 5 members are elected fire district officials. I would vote for any of the 5 that would ban alcohol on premise. Would probaby even try to vote multiple times if I could get away with it.

You can't be more correct. Even if the fire company owns the firehouse, it is/was undoubtedly paid for by contributions of your community. They have entrusted you with a building you can call your own, but with that there is also the expectation that the company will conduct itself properly and provide the service.

As far as alcohol is concerned, I've been on both sides of the fence. I was in a department when my grandfather was president and he had to ban alcohol from the house because it was being abused. Fortunately, we aren't having those problems in my current department. Hopefully this will continue into our new building... if everyone conducts themselves as adults, there never becomes an issue.