Consolidating Services Part Deux - Volunteer Fire

[ladder55 26]

And to those that say it can't be done, or its not needed, one just has to look back to 1995, when the NYPD, the Transit Police, and the Housing Police, effectively consolidated into one department, the NYPD. Some of the old Transit cops I work with have all said that the merger was talked about for years, but no one ever really took it seriously, until the "Hostile Takeover" as the Transit guys called it, actually happened. At the time Transit PD, was the fourth or fifth largest police department in NYS.

why would that mean that volunteer fire depts in westchester need to be consolodated?

[steve shryock 0]

A consolidation study can and should be done.

Consolidation is not an all or nothing situation.

Some areas such as equipment purchasing (variety of apparatus) and dispatch appear to be the easies.

[grumpyff 1,159]

And to those that say it can't be done, or its not needed, one just has to look back to 1995, when the NYPD, the Transit Police, and the Housing Police, effectively consolidated into one department, the NYPD. Some of the old Transit cops I work with have all said that the merger was talked about for years, but no one ever really took it seriously, until the "Hostile Takeover" as the Transit guys called it, actually happened. At the time Transit PD, was the fourth or fifth largest police department in NYS. why would that mean that volunteer fire depts in westchester need to be consolodated?

The point is, the same things were said back in '95 about the 3 police depts, "Its not needed, things are fine, there are no problems."  As volunteer, one that formerly volunteered in Westchester (just look at my signature), is there really a need to have a separate deparment/fire district every few miles.  Not sure in a county wide system, or maybe a more localized grouping say North/South Westchester, or three zones to start.  You hopefully end up with more manpower, and less apparatus at scenes.  You could save money on bulk purchasing/reduction of apparatus/ even buildings.  I not saying that ever town/village would lose their firehouse.  For example, going on the department where I volunteered for 15 years, Pleasantville.  Does Pleasantville really need 2 firehouses with 3 engines, a tower ladder, a recue-pumper, a tanker, a utility, and three chiefs (and cars) to cover 2 square miles, plus its fire protection districts.  Add in Thornwood to the south with 1 house, 2-3 engines, a tower ladder, a rescue-pumper, a utility, it chiefs and cars.  Don't forget Chappaqua to the north, with its 2 houses (I think one is just storage for equipment), with its 2 to 3 engines a tower ladder, a rescue, and its chiefs and cars.   So for three towns covering what 15 to 20 square miles (not sure of the exact area, I'm just guessing) you have almost 9 to 10 engines, 3 tower ladders, 3 rescues , a tanker, 9 chiefs cars, 5 houses and 2 to 3 utility trucks. How much does it cost to purchase/maintain/fuel/replace all this equipment?  Do these departments have the manpower to staff all this apparatus?  I'm not picking on these departments, just using them as an example , but I would to say during the day, NO.  At night, most likely not. The few members that do show up would only have to worry about staffing 1 maybe 2 apparatus, not 17 (not counting utilities/chiefs cars). The point is, even if these three merged,  you could cover the same area with what 3 to 4 engines (1 could be a spare) a rescure, a tower ladder,  the tanker, and 2 to 3 chiefs cars out of three houses.  So, in a nutshell you save what 5 to 6 engines ( with a replacement cost of approximately $500,000 each), 2 tower ladders (approximately $1,000,000 a pice), two rescues ( again about $700,000 each), loose 6 chiefs cars (35,000 each).  Just in apparatus you are looking at saving almost 8.3 million dollars. Now you also save money on reduced fuels costs, insurance, maintenance, equipment (fittings, hose, tools radios,) for each apparatus. Add in reductions in the physical houses, lees insurance, less electric/heating costs plus you now longer have to plan on upgrades to roofs, windows, etc. Selling the properties would also gain money in the short run. By the way the department I currently volunteer in, Patterson, covers a vastly larger area than Pleasantville, but our budget is the same, or less. So tell me again, why consolidation is not needed?

[Tanker 10eng 140]

Consolidation can work in some cases and areas, but is not needed everywhere.... and will be allot tougher then thought of, and in the end may not really help everyone.... I do not claim to be a professional ( all knowing, not a " on the Job Guy ) in the Emergency Services of Westchester County, my knowledge is with my small section of Westchester, Croton....

Yes, down in southern Weschester there are so many districts that they can be combined, maybe even the Tri Village.. But as far as my little piece, I do not seeing being benefical to my taxes payers... who would we combine with and how would it work.... In our Tanker areas, ( Croton, Yorktown and Millwood ) are almost on a dual response to these areas, which has become very helpful and works... and Mutual aid is getting the job done...

Once you consolidate things, and when its said and done... you still have the same situations, just a few less pieces of equipment.... some members may quit, " I do not want and part of that " and a very few may join... so then what ??? bring in paid crews ??? there goes taxes !!! up here we do not have the commerical tax base which keeps the taxes lower for residential taxpayers... ( such as New Rochelle and Yonkers ), so its the people who live there who have to pay for everything.... not business... In Croton that could increase the taxes to the residence and add another ???? 4 to 10 million dollars... per year !! ( not sure of the figures, just a guess ! ) So who is benefitting from this ???

why would you need either so many depts or so many rigs?

good question Barry, But maybe 8 - 10 years ago Croton had a study performed of our Fire Dept., done my some " Experts in the Fire Service in the US " and it came back with the recommendation that we need another engine added to our fleet of 3 engines and possibly even building another firehouse.... I never understood the reasoning and we never went by it ( I was just a peeon )... at times i do not think we need the 3 engines we have, but there have been times it has paid off and been very helpful... so yes, there are allot of over equipment ( ising ) in the volunteer ranks, but the 600K spent on one, costs a town or village, ??? 32 k... a year, over a 25 year life... ( thats what Croton is now planning on )

And to those that say it can't be done, or its not needed, one just has to look back to 1995, when the NYPD, the Transit Police, and the Housing Police, effectively consolidated into one department

the easy thing here, as they where 3 departments within the City, the same tax base, the same big brass on top... combining makes 100% scene.... and why they were not in the first place, well, its a power struggle during the original set up... I guess...

I think in most cases, dual response is working and needs to be better ironed out.. ,everyone needs to work togther and not play silly games, or stuggle for control....

[Bnechis 3,961]

why would that mean that volunteer fire depts in westchester need to be consolodated?

In westchester 30 of the 58 departments have an ISO rating of 9 or a split rating that includes a 9.

That means on an open book test they got between 10% and 20%....In school below 65% was considered a Failure. (and you get 10% for writing your name)

The will claim its because they have no municipal water supply (hydrants).

Colleton County (SC) was made up of a number of seperate VFD's that had ISO ratings of between 7 and 9. The merged into a single agency in 1994 and by proper planning and standardizing of equipment, SOPs, training, etc. they were upgraded to ISO 4 within 5 miles of all fire stations and they have no hydrants.

So in addition to the savings mentioned by others, they are saving every property owner 35% on their property insurance. In Westchester that would be worth over $100 million per year.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Yes, down in southern Weschester there are so many districts that they can be combined, maybe even the Tri Village.. But as far as my little piece, I do not seeing being benefical to my taxes payers... who would we combine with and how would it work.... In our Tanker areas, ( Croton, Yorktown and Millwood ) are almost on a dual response to these areas, which has become very helpful and works... and Mutual aid is getting the job done...

If it works so well, why does the area still recieve a rating of 9 (on a scale of 1-10). The benefit to the taxpayers is to reduce its insurance premiums by 35%

Once you consolidate things, and when its said and done... you still have the same situations, just a few less pieces of equipment.... some members may quit, " I do not want and part of that " and a very few may join... so then what ???

1) The experience by the vast majority of depts that have consolidated report that the situation is drimatically improved.

2) My experience is those members that quit, generally were not doing anything to "help" the dept in the 1st place. We refer to this as addition by subtraction. Which is better 50 members, that have 15 who participate or 20 members that have 15 participate. A lot less headaces with the smaller group of non participating members.

bring in paid crews ??? there goes taxes !!! up here we do not have the commerical tax base which keeps the taxes lower for residential taxpayers... ( such as New Rochelle and Yonkers ), so its the people who live there who have to pay for everything.... not business... In Croton that could increase the taxes to the residence and add another ???? 4 to 10 million dollars... per year !! ( not sure of the figures, just a guess ! ) So who is benefitting from this ???

I've compared the costs of 5 different VFD's in Northern Westchester that there taxpayers all pay more for fire protection than NR residence. its not about the commercial base (NR's pays less than 10% of the total) its about how large the taxbase is. More homes in the same district = lower costs. And that does not take into acount the insurance savings.

good question Barry, But maybe 8 - 10 years ago Croton had a study performed of our Fire Dept., done my some " Experts in the Fire Service in the US " and it came back with the recommendation that we need another engine added to our fleet of 3 engines and possibly even building another firehouse.... I never understood the reasoning and we never went by it

When studies are done you need to look very carefully at who is doing them and what was the ground rules. Are they based on facts or opinions? Can the results be reproduce? A number of years ago NR hired "experts" to do a study on closing fire stations (note the ground rule) The "experts" conclusion was we could reduce the number, increase the number or keep it the same. The opinion was reduce (thats what they were paid for), the reproducable was expand and the facts were we could manage with what we had 9even if the facts showed we needed more).

The consolidation studies I have done are always based on standards (NFPA, ICMA, ISO) and can be reproduced over and over with the same results, regardless of who performs them. They are based on sound mathamatical calculations and not based on the results that those that hired me are looking for.

but the 600K spent on one, costs a town or village, ??? 32 k... a year, over a 25 year life... ( thats what Croton is now planning on )

If you plan on following NFPA, you may need to revaluate the time frame. Also if you are bonding the rigs, you generally pay for them in 5-10 years.

[Remember585 815]

That study Tanker10Engr mentioned was in the mid 90's. I still have a copy of it somewhere.

The 4th Engine suggested was to go in a 4th Station in what is known as the Quaker Fire Protection District in southern Cortlandt that we protect. The issues with this were typical. No members live out there, nobody wants to fund it, the Village will not allow us to expand our fleet.

We can, and hopefully will, improve our ISO rating in the Quaker Fire Protection District by the time I am done as a Chief. It's not going to be easy, but we can achieve it. 20 years ago we were responding with 3 Engines and a Tanker carrying 4200 gallons of water that could be pumped at 5000 gpm. Now we respond with 3 Engines, a Quint and Tanker carrying 6.350 gallons of water that can be pumper at 8000 gpm. Not that we will ever max out the capacities of all our pumps, but this is one improvement we've made.

We also use 5" LDH vs. the 3" double lay that was used.

Starting in January, automatic response to possible structure fires in this area will bring 2 Mutual Aid tankers on the initial dispatch, instead of waiting for an IC to request them.

Pre-plans are underway to "standardize" our tanker operations which include fill locations, fill site distances, travel time for tankers, tanker refill and dump times and other critical building / access info. We have had drills and will be drilling more to improve our operations in these areas, and all of this is with one primary goal - to improve our capabilities to those living in these areas. And, if it all works out as I hope it does, we will improve the ISO ratings in these areas, perhaps saving those living there some insurance money.

Of course, we can't get over the Croton Dam anymore and they are closing Quaker Bridge this Spring, so our response times are going to get worse, so this probably will thwart my plans to improve our services...dang it. We'll just have to call on Mutual Aid more often to get there faster, which is fine by me.

As a side note, I would love to equip my department with a 4th engine as a spare / reserve. All of our pre-plans and drills are based on having 3 Engines at the incident, so when 1 is OOS we're waiting on Mutual Aid. Since I am all in favor of being fiscally responsible to my taxpayers, when the time comes to replace our Rescue, it may be more intelligent to replace it with a Pumper/Rescue. (I know all of my members reading this just had heart attacks, but it's a real possibility that this could be of better use then the "box truck" we currently have.) A Mini-Attack capable of laying a supply line into these pesky narrow driveways where Engines won't fit, another thing I would like to see, but nobody wants to pay for.

One can dream...

Edited December 28, 2008 by Remember585

[Bnechis 3,961]

That study Tanker10Engr mentioned was in the mid 90's. I still have a copy of it somewhere..................................One can dream...

Sounds like you have some great ideas. Good luck with them. 33m1 is responding to those members who just saw your comments....

[JBJ1202 27]

All volunteer departments in Westchester County are unmanned (as opposed to dedicated crews for apparatus). How would that be taking into consideration in regionalizing or consolidating multiple departments?

JBJ

[Bnechis 3,961]

All volunteer departments in Westchester County are unmanned (as opposed to dedicated crews for apparatus). How would that be taking into consideration in regionalizing or consolidating multiple departments?

Unmanned is the norm in almost every regionalized/county combination dept.

The major issue would be can each of the depts/stations actually put together a crew in a reasonable time frame. If they can, then there are no issues.

In some combo depts that can not you may find career day staff or even some rigs career & others volunteer. Fairfax VA had (dont know if they still do) one station with a career eng., career rescue and vol. engine. on structure calls if the volunteer engine signs on within X minutes, they do not need to send a rig from another station. The vol. unit was able to justify a rescue/pumper so now they are 2nd due for both structure and rescue calls. They were busy enough that 2nd due is still busier than most 1st due VFD's here and they get there fair share of work.

The response capabilities need to be based on the needs of the person dialing 911. career and volunteer combinations can and have worked if all parties are willing to allow it to.

[JBJ1202 27]

I see this becoming an issue for departments that still use personal vehicles and are unmanned. Some departments depend on POVs to the scene with sometimes only a driver on the apparatus. If that ladder is utilized in a regional concept, you might have those POVs driving two or three towns over with the truck just having the driver. Understand that I am completely for consolidating and regionalizing, these are just questions that would be asked to me by others.

I feel that with less apparatus and sharing of resources departments would be inclined to have some sort of volunteer staffing, at least during the evenings. Having a standard response for all incidents types is one of the major benefits I see in regionalizing as well. Larger volunteer departments with multiple companies and single company departments cannot be held to the same standard. You can even make the same argument for smaller career departments. Every place you go has a different level of response for the same types of incidents. Commercial alarm might have a single engine response or four engine, two ladders and a rescue response depending on where you live. Having a CFR engine response with an ambulance? Maybe if that department believes in that sort of thing. etc etc etc...

JBJ

Edited December 29, 2008 by JBJ1202

[Tanker 10eng 140]

If you plan on following NFPA, you may need to revaluate the time frame

Barry, not having the NFPA standards in my reach, what are the recommendations for apparatus replacement... I do not know... I only comment from how I see things... most rigs up here are designed and planned for at least 20 years... heck I did not think we needed to replace the 1984 Mack, but many others did... ( well then, I did not want to replace the .... 1962 Mack )but I was a rookie...

not to get side tracked, I really want to know.... or email me if you will ( whg63@verizon.net )

Edited December 29, 2008 by Tanker 10eng

[Bnechis 3,961]

Barry, not having the NFPA standards in my reach, what are the recommendations for apparatus replacement... I do not know... I only comment from how I see things... most rigs up here are designed and planned for at least 20 years...

The current NFPA 1911 Standard for the Inspection, Maintenance, Testing, and Retirement of In-Service Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2007 Edition

Requires that all rigs built in 1979 or prior be retired.

All rigs built between 1980 and 1991 require a full rebuild.

Both are due to new safety technology that does not exist in these vehicles. Stearing & Brake systems was a big part of this.

I will check, but I was told at FDSOA last year that they were also coming out with max lives in the new 1901 (which starts this week).

They claimed 15 years then a rebuild, 20 years...oos. I will check on those.

Are they designed and planned or are they budgeted for at least 20 years....big difference. I rarely see dept. (career and vol) that actually plan there apparatus purchasing.

[spyda308 11]

Ok im going to put my 2 cents in on this. Consolidating volunteer depts. is a good idea for multiple reasons. One being to insure the citizens a good response. This could mean instead of just having a certain department respond, you have the closet stations respond in a full assignment fashion(3Engines 2Trucks Chief(whatever). Case in point on RT132(old yorktown Rd.) in yorktown. When there is a call by London Rd. (off rt132) on yorktown responds even though Mohegan FD is practically down the block(the jefferson vally station). And I know the arguement will be made that Yorktown FD Station 2 is on the beginning of rt132 (locksley rd.) But thats not the point. What if the call turns out to be a job? Then there is a scramble and wait for M/A. Case in point on the job on Belle Ct. Also having depts. on top of each other is a bad system. for example, Yorktown FD responds all the way up to Millwood FD right side of its station, and I think this was proven to be a bad thing a couple of weeks ago when a house off of RT134 burned down. And every time there is a call on RT134, the people who live there have to wait for yorktown to jump on the taconic respond for about 10mins when Millwood could probably be there in 5-7min. Why not make all the volunteer dept. in Westchester County a single department? Call it WCFD. I mean 60 control already dispatches all the volunteers. If you think the system wont work just look at Prince George's County, Maryland (PGFD). And if that doesn't work then go PAID!!!! hahaha

[steve shryock 0]

Ok im going to put my 2 cents in on this. Consolidating volunteer depts. is a good idea for multiple reasons. One being to insure the citizens a good response. This could mean instead of just having a certain department respond, you have the closet stations respond in a full assignment fashion(3Engines 2Trucks Chief(whatever). Case in point on RT132(old yorktown Rd.) in yorktown. When there is a call by London Rd. (off rt132) on yorktown responds even though Mohegan FD is practically down the block(the jefferson vally station). And I know the arguement will be made that Yorktown FD Station 2 is on the beginning of rt132 (locksley rd.) But thats not the point. What if the call turns out to be a job? Then there is a scramble and wait for M/A. Case in point on the job on Belle Ct. Also having depts. on top of each other is a bad system. for example, Yorktown FD responds all the way up to Millwood FD right side of its station, and I think this was proven to be a bad thing a couple of weeks ago when a house off of RT134 burned down. And every time there is a call on RT134, the people who live there have to wait for yorktown to jump on the taconic respond for about 10mins when Millwood could probably be there in 5-7min. Why not make all the volunteer dept. in Westchester County a single department? Call it WCFD. I mean 60 control already dispatches all the volunteers. If you think the system wont work just look at Prince George's County, Maryland (PGFD). And if that doesn't work then go PAID!!!! hahaha

Just an FYI;

60 does NOT dispatch all the vol. in Westchester. THey do not dispatch all the career dept in West Co.

I agree with consolidation of some depts and some areas.

I agree with consolidation of the psaps in the county. Centralized dispatch is more effecient across the board. So some people will lose their local PD as dispatch. I know some cops who would support this but also some PBAs who are opposed to this because they may lose soem arguing points at contract negotiations.

[spyda308 11]

Just an FYI;

60 does NOT dispatch all the vol. in Westchester. THey do not dispatch all the career dept in West Co.

I agree with consolidation of some depts and some areas.

I agree with consolidation of the psaps in the county. Centralized dispatch is more effecient across the board. So some people will lose their local PD as dispatch. I know some cops who would support this but also some PBAs who are opposed to this because they may lose soem arguing points at contract negotiations.

ok i know they dont dispatch ALL but most. I wasn't talking about the paid depts. in westchester Co. they are fine. ok didn't know about the pd situation. but isn't 60 control set up for that?

[steve shryock 0]

ok i know they dont dispatch ALL but most. I wasn't talking about the paid depts. in westchester Co. they are fine. ok didn't know about the pd situation. but isn't 60 control set up for that?

Don't know if 60 control is set up for PD dispatch. Maybe someone from 60 control can answer that.

[spyda308 11]

****Note: My Previous post wasn't meant to offend any particular department or person(s). If I happend to, for that I apologize. I was merely trying to make a point on the topic, not to slander any particular department(s) fire suppression abilities or tactics. When I gave addresses of incidents I was stating them as examples for when intially dispatching a full assignment(mutiple department response) could have worked, and by that I am commenting on the system not anyone's judgement. I am also not saying that anyone did anything wrong at those jobs. If anyone else has any concerns feel free to contact me, Thanx****

Edited January 2, 2009 by spyda313

[FFPCogs 863]

I realize this is a Westchester thread, but just thought I'd throw some of my "insight" into the discussion. After all the idea of consolidating services has spread far beyond the borders of Westchester, and we may all be on that bandwagon before you know it.

I have been an advocate of consolidation in varying degrees for many years, and as a result have found myself on quite a few s***lists. Through all those years some important factors have become apparent, at least to me.

First off is what I'll call the perception factor.

As with almost any facet of life when people call for a change the preception emerges that what is must be wrong, why else would there be a call for change right? Alot of resisitance stems from this perception, since virtually no one likes to be told or even face the implication that they or what they are doing are wrong. In many cases though this perception itself is what is wrong. Change does not have to mean that the "traditional" methods are wrong, only that they need to be reexamined and improvements MAY be in order. Consolidation of fire services falls squarely into this mis-perception, and as a result resitance to it can be almost impenetrable.

Next we have the fear factor.

Any proponents of consolidation will have to address the very real fears that come with the loss or potential loss of money, power, independence and autonomy. For most departments and by extension their Chiefs, they have maintained these aspects since their inception. Now someone comes along, and no matter how well intentioned, calls for a district, town or county to merge with their neighbor(s). Well if this happens someone or all will have to give up control of what has always been "their" area. For most this is not an easy pill to swallow, and they will use almost anything they can to prevent that loss. This is not about incompetence, greed or any other negative, it is about relinquishing what many feel has always and still does "belong" to them. After all they have always served that community, and in most cases are a part of it.

Then comes the career vs volunteer factor.

This is another major impediment which in part feeds on the previous ones when there is talk of the consolidating of paid and volunteer sectors.

Beyond the two previous points above there are other ones which are just as potent. For career departments there are concerns about the quality, quantity and reliability of what their new volunteer "partners" will bring to the table. Coupled with those concerns is the potential reduction in jobs or future growth of the career side due to the influx of a number of volunteers into "their" system. On the flip side for many volunteers there are concerns about being reduced to "second class" firefighters, SCBA bottle changers and hose packers or simply becoming subservient to career demands, standards and necessities. Then there is the loss of "community" that volunteers feel, justifiably so, will inevtiably happen once the "local" volunteer based fire department disappears into one larger service provider. Think of it as "the big fish in a small pond becoming a small fish in a big pond" syndrome.

There is of course one more glaring "universal" factor which stands in the way of consolidation.....the age old rivalries that are as traditional as the fire service itself. No need to go any further into that one as I'm sure you are all well aware of what I mean. There are other factors as well, some general some more specific to an area or city, all of which stand in the way of "progress".

So what's the answer? I'm not sure....to get one you must first ask yourself if consolidation is really in your department's and community's best interest. In most cases that I know of the answer is yes, in 2009 it is.

The only definite way to make consolidation a reality is to lobby the legislature and individual departments with proven facts that are irrefutable, and then work like hell to make it so. As most know there are many "consolidated" countywide departments now in operation. and although all is not peaches and cream, in general the services provided have improved. For those who truly believe that this option is best for the future, do the research, contact those areas to find out what has and hasn't worked, and work on developing a plan to present to all parties involved...oh yeah and count on alot of resistance and ruffling more than a few feathers.

Stay Safe in 2009

Cogs

One more thing, and this is just a personal observation.

I believe that "consolidation" will most assuredly become the buzzword in the coming months and years, if for no other reason that the economy will take some time to recover. The "penny pinchers' may come to see merging as a sure fire way to save money, regardless of the impact. I for one would much rather beat the curve and come to the table prepared with a fire service "plan" in place, than have it thrust down my throat to serve someone else's agenda.

Just some food for thought.

Edited January 2, 2009 by FFPCogs

[gamewell45 258]

A consolidation study can and should be done.

Consolidation is not an all or nothing situation.

Some areas such as equipment purchasing (variety of apparatus) and dispatch appear to be the easies.

A most noble idea; unfortunatley there's no money at this time for a consolidation study; perhaps down the road when and if we are able to pull ourselves out of the current recession. Another thing to keep in mind is the so-called "home rule" mentality. Many departments most likely have no interest in giving up their "empires".

[Bnechis 3,961]

I realize this is a Westchester thread, but just thought I'd throw some of my "insight" into the discussion. After all the idea of consolidating services has spread far beyond the borders of Westchester, and we may all be on that bandwagon before you know it...........I believe that "consolidation" will most assuredly become the buzzword in the coming months and years, if for no other reason that the economy will take some time to recover. The "penny pinchers' may come to see merging as a sure fire way to save money, regardless of the impact. I for one would much rather beat the curve and come to the table prepared with a fire service "plan" in place, than have it thrust down my throat to serve someone else's agenda.

Excellent Post.

If the economy and the tax load does not change quickly then I am conviniced you are correct that the taxpayers, or the state or some other governmental entity will mandate consolidation. In fact last year, the governor proposed eliminating all Fire Districts and making those depts part of town depts. (in westchester that would drop the number of departments from 59 to 26), while that didn't pass last year, as the economy gets worst and taxpayers continue to look for relief, It will come back againand again.

It is clearly better for the fire service to be the leader and put a fire service plan in place before the politicians or angree taxpayers put one inplace that we can't live with.

[Bnechis 3,961]

A most noble idea; unfortunatley there's no money at this time for a consolidation study; perhaps down the road when and if we are able to pull ourselves out of the current recession.

NYS has allocated approximately $12 million each year for the past 3 years and $24 million in 2009 to help municipalities work toward consolidation. The governor has stated that this item is so important it will not be cut.

The NYS Department of State (administers the grants). Grants are available under the new Local Government Efficiency Grant program (formerly known as "SMSI"), which was enhanced this year as recommended by the LGEC Commission. The new name emphasizes a priority placed on local efficiencies to be achieved in a variety of ways, including consolidation of fire protection services. As in the past, counties, cities, towns, villages, special improvement districts, and fire districts are eligible (as our schools and other local entities).

There is a special category of high priority noncompetitive grants for merger and consolidation studies.

Another thing to keep in mind is the so-called "home rule" mentality. Many departments most likely have no interest in giving up their "empires".

Very true, nobody is willing to give it up, but the state is planning to force you to accept it.

The biggest misconception with home rule is that the locals control it. Most home rule items require state approval and the state normally allows the locals to do as they please. The state has the legal right to call the shots on all home rule items and the locals have no legal recourse (think of it as the parents of a teenager, they may let the teen make lots of decisions, but they can pull the rug out at any time).

[helicopper 1,050]

One more thing, and this is just a personal observation.

I believe that "consolidation" will most assuredly become the buzzword in the coming months and years, if for no other reason that the economy will take some time to recover. The "penny pinchers' may come to see merging as a sure fire way to save money, regardless of the impact. I for one would much rather beat the curve and come to the table prepared with a fire service "plan" in place, than have it thrust down my throat to serve someone else's agenda.

Just some food for thought.

Great post, Cogs. You made a lot of good points but the last one, quoted above, is perhaps the most important as BNechis explained.

On the subject of centralized dispatch services...

Imagine a single 911 PSAP serving all of Westchester, including the cellular 911 calls, and regional police, fire and EMS dispatch. For law enforcement, it would mean that all the cops in a geographical area would learn of an incident and be able to respond - or look for fleeing suspect vehicles at the time of dispatch instead of having to wait for a hotline to be transmitted. If all the local PD's put their civilian dispatchers into the system and put their police officers back on the road, we'd have more cops on the street and existing dispatchers could all become part of the new system.

The fire service could be organized by Battalion so everyone in a given area knew what was going on and who was in service, out of service, etc. EMS could be tied into this or operate on its own channels.

On large incidents, all the responders could be networked together to improve incident communications and have things like perimeter groups, operations groups, command nets, staging, etc.

I'm told that the State of Rhode Island has just one 911 PSAP. If it can work for a STATE, it can certainly work for a county like ours.

A pipe dream I know, but maybe some day... Like when the FD uses transporters to be beamed instantly to the scene...

[steve shryock 0]

imagine this, something in Westchester (in the big picture) something that is good for everyone (Members, agencies and the public). I can describe it in one "scary" word

PROGRESS

but lets not disrupt over 200 years of tradition. :-) lol

[Bnechis 3,961]

On the subject of centralized dispatch services...Imagine a single 911 PSAP serving all of Westchester, including the cellular 911 calls, and regional police, fire and EMS dispatch.

Lets look back to when the E911 system was being developed.

At the time New Rochelle had 911 for 632,633 & 235 #'s which covered 75-85% of the city.

Three major groups proposed different PSAP systems

EMS: proposed 2 PSAP's each that could cover the entire county, but operational would be one north the other south and either could cover everything if needed.

Fire: 5 PSAPs - Mt. Vernon, New Rochelle, White Plains, Yonkers & County (for everyone else)

Police: Every PD plus others (county, fire, etc.)

The police argument (which we bought) was that if someone at McDonalds on main street in ______ (NR, Y, Peekskill, etc.) called 911, how would a single dispatch point be able to figure out which PD, FD or EMS to send. It was argued by law enforcement that only the community that the call was coming from would know where it was and what to send.

Everyone ignored the fact that E-911 tells you that that McDonalds is on main st in NR.

And the highest taxed county in the US gets to pay for this forever

[helicopper 1,050]

Lets look back to when the E911 system was being developed.

At the time New Rochelle had 911 for 632,633 & 235 #'s which covered 75-85% of the city.

Three major groups proposed different PSAP systems

EMS: proposed 2 PSAP's each that could cover the entire county, but operational would be one north the other south and either could cover everything if needed.

Fire: 5 PSAPs - Mt. Vernon, New Rochelle, White Plains, Yonkers & County (for everyone else)

Police: Every PD plus others (county, fire, etc.)

The police argument (which we bought) was that if someone at McDonalds on main street in ______ (NR, Y, Peekskill, etc.) called 911, how would a single dispatch point be able to figure out which PD, FD or EMS to send. It was argued by law enforcement that only the community that the call was coming from would know where it was and what to send.

Everyone ignored the fact that E-911 tells you that that McDonalds is on main st in NR.

And the highest taxed county in the US gets to pay for this forever

Yes, and countless thousands continue to be poured into this archaic and inefficient system instead of using the funds - from all the various sources - to actually improve the way we do things. It is a shame!

It isn't that you ignored it, it was a shell game of misdirection. Don't look at my left hand fleecing the County to benefit my little fiefdom, look at my right hand waving this huge public safety issue about not knowing which McDonalds your wife/daughter/father/mother/son/cousin needs help in.