County of Westchester - Shared Services Expo 2011

[61MACKBR1 222]

I would be interested in reading some "serious" discussions on this forum, as it relates to tomorrow's (October 11th) County of Westchester - Shared Municipal Services Expo that will be held.

Now I suspect (but may be wrong) that some Municipalites within the county (notably some of the larger cities, such as Yonkers, New Rochelle, and White Plains) will say that they strongly feel that they (their city) should keep and retain their existing municipal services, just the way it is, while some Cities, Towns and Villages will say that their municipalities would certainly benefit from sharing these services with others throughout the county.

Then, as it relates to both EMS and Fire Protection, the question regarding Paid vs. Volunteer will come up, with the Unions strongly feeling that they need/should have a say into this as well.

Personally, I am a strong proponent of taking the Police, Fire and EMS Operations throughout the entire county and having it run "ALL" under "ONE" governing body, utilizing all of the equipement, apparatus, and manpower that currently exists, and getting rid of any and all "boundries" that currently exits. This would save taxpayers money and would allow for a much better "unified" operation. I say get rid of the politics and egos and allow the county to move forward. Will it be easy? No! Will Rob Asterino push for this? Possibly?

Now, how many Police Commissioners, Fire Commissioners, Fire Chiefs, Heads of EMS, etc, will be seen and be present at this expo? (From Major Cities within Westchester County right down to the Smallest Villages and Towns), remains a mystery. If you don't see one there, I suspect that there will be little to no interest from them or their municipality.

Below is a link to the flyer that the county has sent out, regarding the expo.

http://www3.westchestergov.com/images/stories/pdfs/sharedServices2011.pdf

Edited October 10, 2011 by 61MACKBR1

[ptwatson 82]

Expo looks interesting. I'm for consilidation as well. There are so many repeatative services in each town/village. However, is this expo for the discusion of merging emergency services or more focusing on other municipal services like school disctict's etc.? Would love to hear what they had to say.

[BFD1054 1,552]

Maybe i am wrong, but from looking at the flyer, i see no indication of Police, Fire or EMS involvement?

Either way, seems like an interesting Expo.

[JohnnyOV 2]

We cannot even get departments to agree on an standardized accountability system that can be used county wide, and everyone wants to jump into completely consolidating 60 fire departments (not including brigades and county teams)? How about we start with basic things like radio communication, accountability, mutual aid staffing and training requirements before we go completely changing the tax lines, which is going to be a complete logistical nightmare.

On a side note, is it possible to completely remove all districts lines including fire protection, fire district and city limit lines, and create a Westchester County Fire District or Fire protection district? NYS fire laws are pretty stringent, and I'm pretty sure there has to be a majority vote from the tax payers in the fire district to absorb another or dissolve their own.

[ny10570 745]

I'm not such a fan of a national organization. Economy of scale is only beneficial to a point before the organization becomes so unwieldy that inefficiency of a different sort takes over.

The big cities have a valid argument against consolidation. Their population density allows greater services for less money per resident. The cost of providing a NYC level of response(both in number and response time) in Putnam would be astronomical. Starting with similar sized communities of similar demographics makes the math much easier and can pave the way for further improvements. The sound shore area is one example. Mt. Pleasant is one I'm very familiar with. There is no excuse for Mt. Pleasant to still have so many fire districts. PVAC is covering Pleasantville and Thornwood without issue. Mt. Pleasant successfully consolidated their different water depts into one. The fire districts already all work so closely between dual response agreements on the highways and mutual aid required for most every fire that it shouldn't be this big deal. Ego's are the last remaining hurdle and need to go.

[Westfield12 65]

Hope Malloy doesn't here about that. But seriously, even in CT, that would not be a good idea. I am pretty sure consolidation of FD's in CT would never work partly because the clowns in Hartford (*cough*Malloy) would never approve of it because it's too much freakin' money!! But if it were Obama on the other hand, he would be all over it, even though we are 3 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt. That's my view on the situation, and I offended anyone's political views, sorry.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Westfield12

[valhalla2481 2]

I'm not such a fan of a national organization. Economy of scale is only beneficial to a point before the organization becomes so unwieldy that inefficiency of a different sort takes over.

The big cities have a valid argument against consolidation. Their population density allows greater services for less money per resident. The cost of providing a NYC level of response(both in number and response time) in Putnam would be astronomical. Starting with similar sized communities of similar demographics makes the math much easier and can pave the way for further improvements. The sound shore area is one example. Mt. Pleasant is one I'm very familiar with. There is no excuse for Mt. Pleasant to still have so many fire districts. PVAC is covering Pleasantville and Thornwood without issue. Mt. Pleasant successfully consolidated their different water depts into one. The fire districts already all work so closely between dual response agreements on the highways and mutual aid required for most every fire that it shouldn't be this big deal. Ego's are the last remaining hurdle and need to go.

If you know so much about Mt Pleasant why aren't you aware of the quad districts and tri-districts quad districts are Pleasantville Thornwood Valhalla and Hawthorne and Tri-districts are Hawthrone Thornwood and Valhalla this has been in existence for over 10 years the Commisoners and chiefs have been proactive long before the economy tanked and manpower was the issue it is now they started sharing services and having dual response to make sure they had proper manpower some of the shared services are teh cascade machine state bid fuel different simulators etc etc dual response has been in efffect since around 2000 there is joint drills together training courses that are provided by the commisioners for the joint departments etc the commisioners have worked hard to save tax payers money and still buy the neccesary tools and equipment needed to do teh job right

[JohnnyOV 2]

If you know so much about Mt Pleasant why aren't you aware of the quad districts and tri-districts quad districts are Pleasantville Thornwood Valhalla and Hawthorne and Tri-districts are Hawthrone Thornwood and Valhalla this has been in existence for over 10 years the Commisoners and chiefs have been proactive long before the economy tanked and manpower was the issue it is now they started sharing services and having dual response to make sure they had proper manpower some of the shared services are teh cascade machine state bid fuel different simulators etc etc dual response has been in efffect since around 2000 there is joint drills together training courses that are provided by the commisioners for the joint departments etc the commisioners have worked hard to save tax payers money and still buy the neccesary tools and equipment needed to do teh job right

holy sentence batman

[grumpyff 1,159]

NY10570 was there when I left Pleasantville in 2005 and we were all aware of the quad districts, etc. We had just started to share things like the cascade system, and were exploring things like automatic aid for calls. I think NY10570 was hinting more towards why there are still separate departments such as Pleasantville, Thornwood, Hawthorne, and Valhalla as opposed to a Mt Pleasant FD. How much duplication of apparatus, stations, and a reduction in operaring costs could be achieved?

Edited October 11, 2011 by grumpyff

[JohnnyOV 2]

NY10570 was there when I left Pleasantville in 2005 and we were all aware of the quad districts, etc. We had just started to share things like the cascade system, and were exploring things like automatic aid for calls. I think NY10570 was hinting more towards why there are still separate departments such as Pleasantville, Thornwood, Hawthorne, and Valhalla as opposed to a Mt Pleasant FD. How much duplication of apparatus, stations, and a reduction in operaring costs could be achieved?

Mount Pleasant - According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 32.7 square miles (85 km²), of which, 27.7 square miles (72 km²) of it is land and 5.0 square miles (13 km²) of it (15.26%) is water.

Demographics

As of the census^[1] of 2000, there were 43,221 people, 13,737 households, and 10,522 families residing in the town. The population density was 1,560.5 people per square mile (602.4/km²). There were 13,985 housing units at an average density of 504.9 per square mile (194.9/km²).

total apparatus (from departments websites):

10 Engines

2 Rescue Engines

4 Tower Ladders

1 Ladder

1 Rescue

2 Utilities

(not including SUVs)

Now if you take the city of Yonkers, as strictly a comparable geographical size:

The city occupies 20.3 square miles (52.6 km²), including 18.1 square miles (46.8 km²) of land and 2.2 square miles (5.8 km²) (11.02%) of water, according to the United States Census Bureau with a population of 195,976 (according to the 2010 Census).

10 Engines

4 Ladders

2 Tower Ladders

1 Rescue

1 Squad

Just because the apparatus residing in Mount pleasant are stationed in different districts, does not mean they are not needed. Sure you can consolidate into one department to increase manpower, while maintaining different companies, but I'm pretty sure the apparatus requirements would stay the same, maybe a reduction in rescues or rescue engines on the replacement cycle, and a reduction of chiefs cars possibly. Mount Pleasant has its fair share of large commercial properties, as well as residential sections. Consolidation may lower or raise taxes from one district to another, and a serious study would have to be pursued on whether or not a true savings would actually occur.

edit: sure they run a heck of a lot less fire then Yonkers, and their population density is less then 1/3ed that of Yonkers, but response times need to be taken into consideration when reducing the amount of apparatus in a district

Edited October 11, 2011 by JohnnyOV

[61MACKBR1 222]

Just the concept of having these communities "sharing" resources and agreeing to respond "together" (when needed) to alarms, is a HUGE STEP FORWARD.

Maybe streaching it a bit, but why not have the same thing in the southern end of the county, where Yonkers would respond along with unit(s) within the Eastchetser FD for fire alarms, say coming in from a close to the boarder location in Bronxville, rather than having to have an Engine Company dispatched from, say Station 1 in Eastcheter (Engine 27). If you had, say Engine 29 from Bronxville, along with Ladder Truck from Tuckahoe (19) along with Squad 11 from Yonkers responding, (with 2102 as the Commander) say to an alarm at the River House Apartments on Pondfield Road West, you would save on response time and resources.

Just a thought!

Mount Pleasant - According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 32.7 square miles (85 km²), of which, 27.7 square miles (72 km²) of it is land and 5.0 square miles (13 km²) of it (15.26%) is water.

Demographics

As of the census^[1] of 2000, there were 43,221 people, 13,737 households, and 10,522 families residing in the town. The population density was 1,560.5 people per square mile (602.4/km²). There were 13,985 housing units at an average density of 504.9 per square mile (194.9/km²).

total apparatus (from departments websites):

10 Engines

2 Rescue Engines

4 Tower Ladders

1 Ladder

1 Rescue

2 Utilities

(not including SUVs)

Now if you take the city of Yonkers, as strictly a comparable geographical size:

The city occupies 20.3 square miles (52.6 km²), including 18.1 square miles (46.8 km²) of land and 2.2 square miles (5.8 km²) (11.02%) of water, according to the United States Census Bureau with a population of 195,976 (according to the 2010 Census).

10 Engines

4 Ladders

2 Tower Ladders

1 Rescue

1 Squad

Just because the apparatus residing in Mount pleasant are stationed in different districts, does not mean they are not needed. Sure you can consolidate into one department to increase manpower, while maintaining different companies, but I'm pretty sure the apparatus requirements would stay the same, maybe a reduction in rescues or rescue engines on the replacement cycle, and a reduction of chiefs cars possibly. Mount Pleasant has its fair share of large commercial properties, as well as residential sections. Consolidation may lower or raise taxes from one district to another, and a serious study would have to be pursued on whether or not a true savings would actually occur.

edit: sure they run a heck of a lot less fire then Yonkers, and their population density is less then 1/3ed that of Yonkers, but response times need to be taken into consideration when reducing the amount of apparatus in a district

[JohnnyOV 2]

Just the concept of having these communities "sharing" resources and agreeing to respond "together" (when needed) to alarms, is a HUGE STEP FORWARD.

I completely agree. Absolutely a move in the right direction.

[DaRock98 76]

Mount Pleasant - According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 32.7 square miles (85 km²), of which, 27.7 square miles (72 km²) of it is land and 5.0 square miles (13 km²) of it (15.26%) is water.

Demographics

As of the census^[1] of 2000, there were 43,221 people, 13,737 households, and 10,522 families residing in the town. The population density was 1,560.5 people per square mile (602.4/km²). There were 13,985 housing units at an average density of 504.9 per square mile (194.9/km²).

total apparatus (from departments websites):

10 Engines

2 Rescue Engines

4 Tower Ladders

1 Ladder

1 Rescue

2 Utilities

(not including SUVs)

I think those numbers are a little off. Mt. Pleasant has more apperatus then that. Also are you including the parts of Briarcliff,Chappaqua and Sleepy Hollow that are in the town of Mt. Pleasant?

[huzzie59 75]

I think those numbers are a little off. Mt. Pleasant has more apperatus then that. Also are you including the parts of Briarcliff,Chappaqua and Sleepy Hollow that are in the town of Mt. Pleasant?

Pocantico Hills and Archville also.

[JohnnyOV 2]

I think those numbers are a little off. Mt. Pleasant has more apperatus then that. Also are you including the parts of Briarcliff,Chappaqua and Sleepy Hollow that are in the town of Mt. Pleasant?

I was unaware that they were part of the town... That is just Hawthorne, Valhalla, Pleasantville and Thornwood based off of previous posts

I may have to recant my prior statement.... foot, please meet mouth...