Combining Services

[huzzie59 75]

Has the subject of making a regional fire service by combining the lower Westchester Departments ever been discussed?

Namely Yonkers, Mt. Vernon, both Pelhams, New Rochelle, Eastchester, 3 Greenburghs, Scarsdale and White Plains.

These are all paid dept's thus creating the greatest tax burden to their residents.

It probably would turn out to be a great department, delivering the best service.

This could be the easiest first step to saving money and providing excellent fire protection.

[M' Ave 1,466]

Combining services is DEFINITELY the answer to a great deal of the finance vs. services problems that a lot of communities face. However, that said, Yonkers doesn't really apply and some of the others have been a part of a proposal to consolidate. This is a good start, but I think that there are many depts in this county that need consolidation on just as serious a level, if not more so. Take the Town of Mamaroneck, which encompasses the Village of Larchmont, the Village of Mamaroneck and the unincorporated areas of the Town of Mamaroneck. It's 16sq. miles and has a population of approx. 30,000 residents. Between the three depts, they have:

-11 Engines

-4 Ladders

-3 Rescues

-9 Chiefs vehicles

-Assorted other vehicles.

In comparison, Yonkers covers 25sq miles and 200,000 people with the same # of Engines, 6 Ladders and 1 Rescue.

There are plenty of examples, this is just the one I'm using.

Why not have one Town wide F.D. You could use fewer fire houses, FAR fewer # of apparatus and I'm sure that the combined, larger manpower pool could handle the total number of alarms. The volunteer base would be very large.

[FFPCogs 863]

As alwas look south to MD and VA. for a template from which to build..not perfect by any means but take the good, add what is needed here and it COULD fit the role.

Cogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

These are all paid dept's thus creating the greatest tax burden to their residents.

Just because they are career depts. does not mean the tax burden is that bad. In New Rochelle the average taxpayer pays less than the average in Bedford hills, plus no one has a better ISO rating in the county so we save our residence 56% on their home owners insurance, in addition to paying less for the service.

[huzzie59 75]

Just because they are career depts. does not mean the tax burden is that bad. In New Rochelle the average taxpayer pays less than the average in Bedford hills, plus no one has a better ISO rating in the county so we save our residence 56% on their home owners insurance, in addition to paying less for the service.

Both replies - great points, but the tax burden response is something I didn't think about.

But could the entire region benefit from a combined "regional" department?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Both replies - great points, but the tax burden response is something I didn't think about.

No one in the fire service considers the the economics. All we ever talk about is saving lives and property. The public could care less about that as long as its not their life or property, but they do care about $$$$.

Consider this: What is the cost of fire protection?...................Most people think its the FD's budget.

The Water Supply System (worth 100's of millions) + The Fire Department + Building Construction & Code Enforcement + Fire Insurance

These 4 components add up to the total cost of fire protection.

If you spend more in one category another category drops, often the drop can be more than the additional cost.

Example #1: Adding automatic fire sprinklers to single family dwelling causes the insurance premium to drop. Generally the savings equal the sprinkler cost after seven years. If the structure has a 30 year mortgage, the owner will have spent less for 23 years because of the sprinklers. Since most buildings last far longer, after the buildings 7th year its all savings.

Example #2: Improving the fire department may cost millions, but the savings on the insurance often offsets the FD cost, sometimes by 5 to 10 times.

Example #3: Failing to inspect your water supply to the AWWI (American Water Works Institute) standards may save the cost of hiring an inspector, But it can drop the insurance rating and cost the community millions of dollars.

Even Ben Franklin understood the economics when he started the 1st VFD. He also started the 1st fire insurance company in America that same day. He was looking to make a buck from being a volunteer chief.

But could the entire region benefit from a combined "regional" department?

Instead of me answering this, consider how many depts in westchester have rigs they can not properly staff? if you have 4 rigs and your average response is 8 members, would you be better off having 2 rigs with 4 FF's each and auto aid or 4 rigs with 2 ff's each (and auto aid?) ?

Whats the cost of those additional rigs, plus station spaace, insurance, interest on bonds, etc.?

Is a 4 man rig more effective, even with fewer rigs? does it fill up the scene as badly? Are we paying $500,000 or much more for a taxi to sit in stagging while its members pull hose from another under manned rig?

[61MACKBR1 222]

Regionalization might make sense, again within the same lines at Baltimore County, MD and Gwinnett County, GA. You can even include Yonkers in the plan, although, given the geographic make up within Yonkers, you could not reduce or spreadout Yonkers. Just keep Yonkers as they are, but include them in the Regional Format. Including Yonkers in a Regional Concept would elliminate the issues regarding Mutual Aid (as there would no longer be any territorial boundries and staffing issues to overcome, as everyone would be part of the same Fire District). Also, with the Yonkers Mayor planning cuts within YFD, you could "easily" take those YFD FF's affected and have them working over in the Mount Vernon Region, as part of say a "Westchester County Southern Fire District" (and we all know how poorly staffed [AND EQUIPED] Mount Vernon is right now). This way you have 1 single Westchster County Southern Fire District, comprised of the 2 Pelhams, Eastchester, Mount Vernon, Yonkers, Greenville, New Rochelle, etc, etc. Just a thought.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Code enforcement has absolutely nothing to do with your ISO rating. Its rediculous, yes, but ISO doesn't care how you prevent fires, just how you are capable of stopping them.

Also, you probably won't see regionalization because of the "Home Rule" doctrine. Nobody wants to give up their proverbial piece of the pie.

Edited December 17, 2008 by SageVigiles

[hudson144 150]

Good thought but we will never see it! IMO. jjc

[CPAGE 2]

I love how everyone thinks this is so do. First off what is the base pay you would have to go to the higher paid dept and use that as your new base. That would be great for guys in a dept that is lower on the scale but who picks up the rest of the money to bring it to the new scale.

Just my 2 cents.

[FFPCogs 863]

Also, you probably won't see regionalization because of the "Home Rule" doctrine. Nobody wants to give up their proverbial piece of the pie.

Sad, but unfortunately very true.

Cogs

[helicopper 1,050]

I love how everyone thinks this is so do. First off what is the base pay you would have to go to the higher paid dept and use that as your new base. That would be great for guys in a dept that is lower on the scale but who picks up the rest of the money to bring it to the new scale.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't think anyone believes that it would be easy or that there wouldn't be a multitude of challenges to work out. It is, however, probably the best option for standardizing the fire response across lower Westchester County.

Some municipalities would undoubtedly have to kick in a bit more than they are now and union issues would definitely need to be worked out but it could be done.

Sadly the home rule issue is a huge issue not just about consolidation but a great many things.

[NWFDMedic 58]

It seems to be a common topic here about regionalization of services and it comes up in different places at different levels and in every facet of emergency services. In some systems it might work; in others, it can be horribly ineffective. I've already said that I really know nothing about lower Westchester, so I can't make an argument one way or the other.

I happen to think my town would benefit from a town-wide fire department. It would likely be more cost effective and it could result in some better protection. However, by another example, the medic system in Putnam is a county-wide system and a complete disaster. The townships would be much better served having their own ALS providers and it would probably be more financially sensible as well.

So, I guess the answer is yes and no, regionalization can work but sometimes it's not the best option. For Lower Westchester, I would imagine the best answer would be to bring someone in who could provide a non-partisan opinion... but who is ever going to pay for that?

[RWC130 594]

Combining AND Consolidation of Emergency Services

is something Westchester County should absolutely

consider. Police, Fire, and EMS

In the end we would ALL benefit from this!

[NYMedic37 22]

Has the subject of making a regional fire service by combining the lower Westchester Departments ever been discussed?

Namely Yonkers, Mt. Vernon, both Pelhams, New Rochelle, Eastchester, 3 Greenburghs, Scarsdale and White Plains.

These are all paid dept's thus creating the greatest tax burden to their residents.

It probably would turn out to be a great department, delivering the best service.

This could be the easiest first step to saving money and providing excellent fire protection.

Sounds like a great Idea Mike but I'm afraid that all of the politics and personalities would get in the way. The idea should be considered for EMS and maybe even PD too. Set up different regions thruout Westchester.

[huzzie59 75]

I'm not looking to get into how much pay, seniority, etc.

Home rule - may be a huge issue.

Personalities, etc. who cares?

I know these all play into the equation.

BUT,

Starting with an assumption, My assumption, for this conversation, that the fact that lower westchester is almost all paid departments, it would seem easier to start in lower Westchester to "regionalize".

Let's just discuss if there really would be advantages and what they are. Or is smaller really better?

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Combining AND Consolidation of Emergency Services

is something Westchester County should absolutely

consider. Police, Fire, and EMS

In the end we would ALL benefit from this!

I would agree on the fire and ems end. But the PD side I would like to see something comparable to look at. I lived in a county in Virginia with county fire, ems and police. The wait times on PD arrival could be quite extended in the heavily populated areas. Would it work, I'm sure but I'd like to see how such staffing questions are answered. I can remember when you brought up the response and wait times in the Town of Cortlandt with the system they have now, do you think it would get better with a total county force?

[M' Ave 1,466]

There is only one issue that politicians will care about with regards to combined services. Money. It has to be cheaper. We all may think about the service benefits and what not, but the fact of the matter is, it has to be cheaper for elected officials to care. The point? That HAS to mean fewer firemen on the payroll and that's something that we never want to talk about.

If you combined Eastchester, New Rochelle, the Pelhams and Mount Vernon that would come up as an issue.

Lets say (I'm guessing on the real number)

**I DO NOT KNOW THE ACTUAL NUMBERS, THIS IS JUST FOR EXAMPLES SAKE***

New Rochelle has, all included, 35 on duty at a time.

Pelham has 3

Pelham Manor has 3

Eastchester has 12

Mount Vernon has 20

That's a total of 73 guys working. Combined they'd want fewer on duty than they have when separate. If this was one large F.D. then you'd have to be more economical with the staffing or this doesn't make sense on paper. No one there wants to cut the number of positions for firemen, because we know we always need more people, that's another big sticking point.

The ratio of firemen on duty to civilians in the municipality always rises with the size of the city.

Look at NYC and Yonkers.

YFD, about 80 on duty: Ratio to the public is, 1:2475

FDNY, about 2200 on duty: Ratio to the public is, 1:3818

In White Plains, the ratio is something like 1:2100, so again, with a smaller city there are fewer civilians for each fireman.

That is no measure of the quality of the fire protection at all. It's simply a look at how efficient the department appears to those who look at nothing but the bottom line. On paper, financially, New York City is getting more for their money because there are more civilians for every fireman.

If services are combined, then the public officials are going to look for the larger organization to be more economically efficient. Cost savings cannot be gained from ISO and insurance related rebates alone.

Edited December 17, 2008 by M' Ave

[Guest]

While I can see why most people would be worried about loss of staffing since this would only have a chance if the politicians saw this as a money-saving venture, the redundant apparatus could also be a huge savings. If you take a look at all the apparatus for such a small area, and seeing what is needed and can be staffed, reducing the number of apparatus could prove a huge windfall. NO ONE wants to see any jobs lost, but managing the resources more efficiently should save money in and of itself. Of course, it isn't as simple as just consolidating and thats it...there's a lot of variables to take into account. But I think it would be worth it in the end.

[M' Ave 1,466]

Apparatus is not a huge cost. I really doesn't have to be. It's half a million dollars bonded and paid for over many many years.

[billfitz 109]

I'm not looking to get into how much pay, seniority, etc.

Home rule - may be a huge issue.

Personalities, etc. who cares?

I know these all play into the equation.

BUT,

Starting with an assumption, My assumption, for this conversation, that the fact that lower westchester is almost all paid departments, it would seem easier to start in lower Westchester to "regionalize".

Let's just discuss if there really would be advantages and what they are. Or is smaller really better?

I think it would be better to experiment in central Westchester - Tarrytown, Elmsford, Dobbs, Hastings, Sleepy Hollow & Ardsley - combining the resources of the volunteers would help with low turnout during weekdays - plus being that they are volunteers their would be no union contracts to deal with - they all volunteer - you could save millions with less firehouses & apparatus - One Chief - eliminate all the chiefs - all of the chief's cars - Another thing your right about who cares about the personalties I think this would be a great place to start! Why has no one thought of this before - BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!

Edited December 17, 2008 by billfitz

[Bnechis 3,961]

Code enforcement has absolutely nothing to do with your ISO rating. Its rediculous, yes, but ISO doesn't care how you prevent fires, just how you are capable of stopping them.

My example should have made it clearer, having stricter codes, making buildings with sprinklers, with masonry instead of wood etc. changes your 4 digit insurance code (Not ISO) and will reduce your insurance costs.

[Guest EFFP411]

For a while the idea of attempting consolidation confused me a little bit. It was brought up about Dutchess county, and being that the town that I volunteer for has only 1 common fire district for 60 square miles of the town, it didn't seem like a very plausable idea at the time. I then realized how many places outside of Dutchess may have 5 or more little fire districts inside of 1 town. When looking at it that way, i can see how it would probably benefit areas like that. Or, Even in areas of Dutchess county- The Town of fishkill for example, containing Glenham, Rombout, Dutchess Junction?(may be considered beacon), Village of Fishkill, and half of Chelsea, it might serve them a little better instead of passing a firehouse just to get to the other end of the response area... IE: Rombout passing through the village of fishkill right by PEco to the opposite end of the territory. Who knows, it might actually be crazy enough to work....

[huzzie59 75]

I think it would be better to experiment in central Westchester - Tarrytown, Elmsford, Dobbs, Hastings, Sleepy Hollow & Ardsley - combining the resources of the volunteers would help with low turnout during weekdays - plus being that they are volunteers their would be no union contracts to deal with - they all volunteer - you could save millions with less firehouses & apparatus - One Chief - eliminate all the chiefs - all of the chief's cars - Another thing your right about who cares about the personalties I think this would be a great place to start! Why has no one thought of this before - BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!

I actually was going to say this, more or less. Without the personalities it would seem it would be easier with volunteer departments to consolidate.

Greenburgh as a whole would be a good area to start with. Merge the 6 Village fire departments and the three paid departments into two departments.

But with less companies in each village area, do you run the risk of losing volunteers and thereby create another problem?

[SageVigiles 1,194]

My example should have made it clearer, having stricter codes, making buildings with sprinklers, with masonry instead of wood etc. changes your 4 digit insurance code (Not ISO) and will reduce your insurance costs.

Ah, point taken.

[Goose 188]

Just a bit of a sidebar (because i don't think consolidation will ever happen) - people could care less about their lives, its the property they care about. If people cared about life as much as they do property EMS would be seen just as important and essential as a Fire Department or Police Department.

[FirNaTine 370]

I think it would be better to experiment in central Westchester - Tarrytown, Elmsford, Dobbs, Hastings, Sleepy Hollow & Ardsley - combining the resources of the volunteers would help with low turnout during weekdays - plus being that they are volunteers their would be no union contracts to deal with - they all volunteer - you could save millions with less firehouses & apparatus - One Chief - eliminate all the chiefs - all of the chief's cars - Another thing your right about who cares about the personalties I think this would be a great place to start! Why has no one thought of this before - BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!

I was thinking along the same lines Chief, but in Northern Westchester such as combining Yorktown, Somers, Mahopac, Mt.Kisco, Briarcliff, Chappaqua, Bedford, Bedford Hills, etc.etc. In fact maybe the idea of a new Northern Westchester Career Dept. encompassing these Towns and Villages could be looked into. Then they'd always be guaranteed a set number of personnel responding no matter what time or day of the week. I know if I was a Volunteer FF in one of these Communities I'd be the first to sign up for the test. Nothing like getting paid to do something you love so much. I'm sure it could be done, personalities aside.

[Turborich 12]

No one in the fire service considers the the economics. All we ever talk about is saving lives and property. The public could care less about that as long as its not their life or property, but they do care about $$$$.

Consider this: What is the cost of fire protection?...................Most people think its the FD's budget.

The Water Supply System (worth 100's of millions) + The Fire Department + Building Construction & Code Enforcement + Fire Insurance

These 4 components add up to the total cost of fire protection.

If you spend more in one category another category drops, often the drop can be more than the additional cost.

Example #1: Adding automatic fire sprinklers to single family dwelling causes the insurance premium to drop. Generally the savings equal the sprinkler cost after seven years. If the structure has a 30 year mortgage, the owner will have spent less for 23 years because of the sprinklers. Since most buildings last far longer, after the buildings 7th year its all savings.

Example #2: Improving the fire department may cost millions, but the savings on the insurance often offsets the FD cost, sometimes by 5 to 10 times.

Example #3: Failing to inspect your water supply to the AWWI (American Water Works Institute) standards may save the cost of hiring an inspector, But it can drop the insurance rating and cost the community millions of dollars.

Even Ben Franklin understood the economics when he started the 1st VFD. He also started the 1st fire insurance company in America that same day. He was looking to make a buck from being a volunteer chief.

Instead of me answering this, consider how many depts in westchester have rigs they can not properly staff? if you have 4 rigs and your average response is 8 members, would you be better off having 2 rigs with 4 FF's each and auto aid or 4 rigs with 2 ff's each (and auto aid?) ?

Whats the cost of those additional rigs, plus station spaace, insurance, interest on bonds, etc.?

Is a 4 man rig more effective, even with fewer rigs? does it fill up the scene as badly? Are we paying $500,000 or much more for a taxi to sit in stagging while its members pull hose from another under manned rig?

This is a profound post and we should all keep these thoughts in mind before we make opinions..

Edited December 18, 2008 by Turborich

[Oswegowind 17]

Senor Nechis seems to always have great points. I look forward to the day the members of the Tri-Village, where I live (Buchanan, Verplank, and Montrose), decide to do this. They already tone out all 3 departments so they have enough manpower responding on structure fires. 3 stations would be fine, but cut the excess equipment, have "3" fire chiefs, 1 elected from each of the prior departments that all have equal power and run a schedule of who is covering 1st alarm, 2nd alarm, and so on and then have line officers at each station. No offense to any of the members, but Buchanan really does not need their own Rescue truck when Montrose has a heavy rescue and Verplank has a rescue pumper. So if the plan to replace the "bread van" is not just rumor than I opposed to it. The volunteers have to be just as responsible fiscally as I do for my own family, and they need to remember that all that equipment is costing them in their own property taxes too. A reduction would not only make sense, but would save them money in the long run. There are not too many volunteers that don't live in their own response area.

Combining of services may not be what everyone wants, but this is 2008 and will be 2009 real soon. It is a time for change!

[Bnechis 3,961]

Senor Nechis seems to always have great points.

Thanks, and I always thought Sr. was my dad...