Peekskill Explores Central FD HQ

[Remember585 815]

Peekskill considers sites for new central firehouse

By Jim Roberts

Move would close

six firehouses

The long-discussed but never realized plan to close Peekskill’s six firehouses and build one modern central facility will gain new momentum later this month when consultants present an analysis of seven possible locations for the city council to review.

Peekskill Mayor Mary Foster said that plan is to maintain individual fire companies identities in the new firehouse but that the city needs to house the fire department in one facility.

“We’re at a crossroad now,” Mayor Foster said. “We are building the fire department of the future without losing our history.”

Peekskill Fire Chief John Pappas said that the plan has been under discussion for several years but that the move is necessary at this time.

“We’ve got several houses that just aren’t functioning anymore,” Pappas said.

Pappas said the city is looking to build at least an eight-bay firehouse that would house all the city’s fire trucks and equipment. The new building could be as much as 42,000-square feet and comprise two or three stories.

“It won’t affect the manpower of the career force,” he said. “That will stay the same. And it will increase the manpower of the volunteer force. It will save on fuel and we’ll be a more efficient department all around.”

Although there are six firehouses spread around Peekskill now, they are not all open at the same time or constantly manned or equipped, so there are occasions when coverage of fires has to come from across town. The firehouse on Highland Avenue is currently closed while the city monitors an ongoing rodent and insect problem there.

Having all the fire trucks in one station will give the department more flexibility scheduling career firemen and trucks, said Pappas.

Four of the sites under consideration are in the area of Park Street and Broad Street; another is near the Park Street parking ramp; one is next to the firehouse on Crompond Road and the last one is at 701 Washington St.

Pappas said the architect and the consultant should have their part of the puzzle done by the end of May, with input from the fire departments and others. Bonds would be issued to pay for the new construction. Pappas said he hopes an estimate of $12 million is on the high side but that any delays would add to the cost. He hopes to fast track the project so it would be ready to open in the late summer of 2010.

Foster said she is interested in innovative uses of the new firehouse, possibly involving a multi-use building with residential or retail elements, and taking enough time to plan the facility and hear from the public.

Historically, Peekskill firehouses have been located in the center of town and Foster said that’s a likely location for the new firehouse.

Preserving the historic roots of Peekskill’s traditional volunteer firehouses is another important part of the project.

“We can still have dedicated space for each of the six traditional fire companies to have meeting space and display their memorabilia,” Foster said.

According to Councilwoman Cathy Pisani, the firehouse consolidation project is being rushed through the council without enough information for her or the public to consider.

Pisani said, “I want the community to have input, I want the community to have information, and I want conceptual plans. I want more information if in fact we are following this aggressive time line for the summer of 2010.”

Six fire companies make up the Peekskill Fire Department. They are: Columbian Engine, Cortlandt Hook and Ladder, Columbian Hose, Washington Engine, Centennial Hose and the Peekskill Fire Patrol. Five of them are owned by the city now and Columbian Hose at the Beach Shopping Center is owned by the fire company. There are 180 volunteer firefighters and 24 career firefighters, according to the 2008 budget. The city pays $3.16 million annually for the fire department operation.

Having been in all of Peekskill's stations at one time or another, and knowing how their manning goes, I think this might be the best solution for the Peekskill FD and wish them the best of luck with what is a MORE THEN DESERVED NEW FIREHOUSE.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Remember585

[BFD1054 1,552]

John, i couldnt agree more bro. I have heard this idea floating around for quite some time now and was curious as to how it would pan out.

I think it would be a great move to centralize the companies. I also think it'd be beneficial to increase the career staffing or at least consolidate and place more career guys on less rigs. But thats another story all in itself.

Being under one roof would make it much easier to conduct training (career & vol), keep up communications and keep up on rig checks.

Anyway, we will all wait and see what happens. Either way, i wish the best to the PFD in their ventures to make for better FD operations for the City's future. I believe the men and women of the PFD deserve better facilities and it seems the best solution would be to consolidate.

[INIT915 1,119]

John, i couldnt agree more bro. I have heard this idea floating around for quite some time now and was curious as to how it would pan out.

I think it would be a great move to centralize the companies. I also think it'd be beneficial to increase the career staffing or at least consolidate and place more career guys on less rigs. But thats another story all in itself.

Being under one roof would make it much easier to conduct training (career & vol), keep up communications and keep up on rig checks.

Anyway, we will all wait and see what happens. Either way, i wish the best to the PFD in their ventures to make for better FD operations for the City's future. I believe the men and women of the PFD deserve better facilities and it seems the best solution would be to consolidate.

I agree, I like the idea. The proposed locations are all fairly central, maybe with the exception of the 701 Washington St site.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

also think it'd be beneficial to increase the career staffing or at least consolidate and place more career guys on less rigs. But thats another story all in itself.

Yes it is...you better be careful, next thing you know you'll be labelled anti volunteer instead of pro service and a "teamwork" concept. Having one building is a win all around and is probably one of the biggest progressive moves the department has made on that magnitude in quite some time and changing for the future since the implemenation of ALS services.

“It won’t affect the manpower of the career force,” he said. “That will stay the same. And it will increase the manpower of the volunteer force. It will save on fuel and we’ll be a more efficient department all around.”

I don't see exactly how the PERSONNEL staffing levels are parallel to the story, but I guess its one way to make a point of wanting to see the career force staffing levels remain the same. As far as the other comment, I won't touch that political football on here. It will without a doubt be more efficient and save on fuel/heating costs as any modern building will.

According to Councilwoman Cathy Pisani, the firehouse consolidation project is being rushed through the council without enough information for her or the public to consider.

Pisani said, “I want the community to have input, I want the community to have information, and I want conceptual plans. I want more information if in fact we are following this aggressive time line for the summer of 2010.”

I'm not sure of how its being rushed, the discussion and pre planning and input from some designers has been going on for over a year now and before this current change of administration came to office. In fact I believe that the prior administration is the one that gave the go ahead to look into options for a central station and to try to come up with potential sites.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Overall its a pretty good idea. The one thing they have to be careful with is the ISO rating, particularly for distribution. they want an engine to be within 1.5 road miles. Peekskill is 4.32 sq. miles. which is just over the distances. It can be done without losing points but the location is very critical.

[Raz 14]

"It won't affect the manpower of the career force," he said. "That will stay the same. And it will increase the manpower of the volunteer force. It will save on fuel and we'll be a more efficient department all around."

I don't see exactly how the PERSONNEL staffing levels are parallel to the story, but I guess its one way to make a point of wanting to see the career force staffing levels remain the same. As far as the other comment, I won't touch that political football on here.

Eh, what the hell, I'll touch that political football (it's going to get brought up eventually). You're right, the relocation and consolodation of resources shouldn't have a major effect on staffing levels in either direction, on either side. Making a statement that it will undeniably increase volunteerism is preposterous.

On this site, we've pretty much agreed that volunteerism is down nationally. The reason that everyone seems to agree on is time and money, and the fact that nobody has enough of either to justify taking time away from their family or second job to devote to the firehouse. Peekskill is in an especially tough spot. It's annual median household income is $47,177. That's below the U.S. median of $50,821, further below the NYS median of $53,534, and left in the dust of Westchester County's median of $78,441. In black and white, that is the biggest hurdle facing Peekskill's volunteer firefighters. Who the hell can afford to pay Westchester cost of living expenses and then find time to donate to the fire department, while making little more than half the money that the rest of the county makes?

Is building a new firehouse going to magically erase that fact? In a word, no. It may serve to improve the training and make better use of the existing volunteers (and career staff, for that matter), but it's not going drastically bolster their numbers in any impactful fashion. The statement that article reeks of wishful thinking by a beleaguered chief.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Raz

[SageVigiles 1,194]

It would, however, increase the ability of volunteers to get out the door, if they are all out of one station they are more likely to have the required manpower to get a truck out the door, whatever that may be.

[Raz 14]

It would, however, increase the ability of volunteers to get out the door, if they are all out of one station they are more likely to have the required manpower to get a truck out the door, whatever that may be.

Peekskill's rigs roll on alarm with the career staff. Most of Peekskill's volunteers respond from home.

[SteveOFD 176]

It would, however, increase the ability of volunteers to get out the door, if they are all out of one station they are more likely to have the required manpower to get a truck out the door, whatever that may be.

If I recall correctly Peekskill Volunteers are not allowed to drive the rigs. I heard this when PFD first got their Boat and the Career FF's did not want the Vol's piloting the Boat. I may be wrong, so if so feel free to correct me.

[PFD165 1]

You are correct Steve, in Peekskill the career staff operate the apparatus per their contract. The volunteers respond from home or hop the rig if they are at the station when the call hits.

The only thing a new station will improve for the volunteers is the condition of the quarters. I know for a fact that the committee working with the architect is NOT looking into 6 individual company rooms. The idea is to consolidate the rooms to allow for one large meeting/public use room that can be divided for the monthly company meetings( 2 companies meet each night Tues-Thur the 1st week ) and then there will be 1 large recreation/lounge/tv room for all 6 to utilize. The career staff will have their own area for the 5 or 6 career staff that are on each shift.

Knowing how things go and the fact that this has been looked into and talked about for awhile, I doubt you will see 2010 as a completion date. Most of the properties that are being talked about are not owned by the city and would have to be purchased, and most important the public will have to approve the money for the firehouse and purchase and that could be tricky with school taxes and now city taxes climbing in the City.

Finally, it is also possible that the consultant could come back and say that 1 firehouse will not be sufficient, he may suggest two with three companies in each. We will all just have to wait and see what happens.

[Oswegowind 17]

I think it is a great idea. It has been discussed on here and in Peekskill in the past without any action. In the article, the mayor is quoted as saying, "We are at a crossroad." Well, that is just where the fire house should be...Park & Broad which is also known as the crossroads, hence the plaza of stores across the street are named after. That has been a useless lot for more than 25 years of my life that I can remember. As well, when I drive through Peekskill, which is all to often, I always see the units gathered at certain stations like E130 or E131's house. If anything, Peekskill could probably save some money on diesel fuel as they would all be together all the time. It just makes sense, but that may be the biggest stumbling block. Hopefully the individual companies will not block the wheels of progress.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I think it is a great idea. It has been discussed on here and in Peekskill in the past without any action. In the article, the mayor is quoted as saying, "We are at a crossroad." Well, that is just where the fire house should be...Park & Broad which is also known as the crossroads, hence the plaza of stores across the street are named after. That has been a useless lot for more than 25 years of my life that I can remember.

Without doing an actual ISO road distance analysis, I used that location and drove out (on the map) and it looks like the furthest points are 2.44 miles. ISO wants 1.5 miles max. They will allow up to 5 miles, but they take points away based on the % of the community beyond 1.5 miles.

This is a big step, that if done right will help the dept for the next 50 - 100 years. If the insurance premiums are a consideration, they better understand that if this location is a good one or will it cost the property owners for the next 50 - 100 yrs.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

If I recall correctly Peekskill Volunteers are not allowed to drive the rigs. I heard this when PFD first got their Boat and the Career FF's did not want the Vol's piloting the Boat. I may be wrong, so if so feel free to correct me.

Is it true what I heard that the career staff consists of a driver for each rig.....so the rigs are responding with driver only? And if a career f/f calls in sick and it does not get covered that unit is OOS for the shift? That makes no sense, why not train some volunteers as Chauff.s so the rig does not have to go OOS, is it a union issue?

If all the rigs will be in one house the best way to go would be to have the 6 (assuming its 1 carrer man per rig, 6 ) on duty career staff man 1 Engine with 4 and the Ladder with 2. Have the other rigs respond with the volunteers. Just asking, everyone has their own way of doing things and what works for some does not work for all.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Ladder47

[x635 4,066]

I think this is an excellent idea....no need for several stations and the associated costs it presents, especially the way PFD is set up. Peekskill is a relatively compact city, and can be adaquetly served from a central station.

Maybe with this move, they could also staff properly a Paramedic Engine and a Paramedic Truck company. Especially if they sell the land the current firehouses are on, and redundant equipment.

[PFD165 1]

Is it true what I heard that the career staff consists of a driver for each rig.....so the rigs are responding with driver only? And if a career f/f calls in sick and it does not get covered that unit is OOS for the shift? That makes no sense, why not train some volunteers as Chauff.s so the rig does not have to go OOS, is it a union issue?

If all the rigs will be in one house the best way to go would be to have the 6 (assuming its 1 carrer man per rig, 6 ) on duty career staff man 1 Engine with 4 and the Ladder with 2. Have the other rigs respond with the volunteers. Just asking, everyone has their own way of doing things and what works for some does not work for all.

Yes, it is a Union issue, per the contract between the City and the Union, the volunteers are not allowed to operate the vehicles or the pumps. Most of the time the vacant shift is covered by OT. In the event of a large incident within the city, the mutual aid call would go out and the call back for the OOS rig would be made to man that with a member of the Career staff.

The rigs are currently staffed at 1 Career person per rig per shift. Usually 5 out of 6 rigs are manned, sometimes all 6. 1 Ladder, 1 Rescue & 3 Engines normally, the 6th would be an Engine. The volunteers respond to the scene.