Will or should I say "WHEN" will this happen here

[firepunk 3]

Found this article. Is this the way of of the future? Will it happen here? Can it be stopped?

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10644423/calif-city-officially-disbands-fd-in-favor-of-outsourcing

[jack10562 414]

We have already seen The Town of Cortlandt and Town of Ossining disband their police departments and contract with the County for police services. Existing officers for each town were "hired" by the county and now they get a county paycheck.

It is going to take much, much longer for the fire service to accomplish anything similar to this here (Westchester) since there currently is no county-wide fire department to absorb existing town or city fire operations.

Even if the economy does a 180 turnaround, there will always be towns, villages and cities looking for ways to save $$$

[FFPCogs 863]

I think as politicians become more and more aware of this or similar options we will see an increase in consolidated and in some cases maybe even outsourced FDs. Ryebrook's experiment not withstanding outsourcing to private corporations is fast becoming the solution du jour for all manner of public services as cities and towns look to save a few bucks. Is it realistic to think that the fire service will remain immune indefinitely?

Given the option I think it would be far better to consolidate than to become part of a profit driven private sector corporation. Many here have said it and many more here realize it....it is time to consolidate no matter the obstacles. The threat of privatization may in the end bring about what years of talking, studying and arguing over hasn't...consolidation.

Cogs

[SageVigiles 1,194]

I'm going to pose a question here, and I don't intend it to be slanted one way or the other, I want to legitimately hear people's opinion on the issue.

IF this were to happen in Westchester or in CT, would it be a good thing or a bad thing? There have been countless discussions of consolidation on this forum and this is an example of it ACTUALLY happening and a fire department ceasing to exist as a result.

I realize the article doesn't give too much context or details of the merger, but I'm speaking at face value based on what we know from this article, assuming its correct.

[losromero 13]

Being from California, I have seen this outsourcing directly. The city I grew up in was served by the LA County Sheriff and the LA County Fire Depts. Many cities, and now counties, across California have disbanded their own FDs in favor of contracting with their county, or the state (CalFire). The City of Santa Fe Springs shifted law enforcement from the LA Sheriffs to the neighboring City of Whittier. In many cases, like my city, the larger political body has the resources to provide better services than the smaller body.

In our setting, I do not know how much savings can be realized by consolidation. It would appear that the savings would be realized by eliminating apparatus. How much can be saved from a department with an operating budget of $160,000 with three pumpers, one aerial and one rescue? ISO has stated that they must have three pumpers and one aerial.

To further complicate the matter locally, our county is split between special tax districts and municipal departments.

Edited March 9, 2012 by losromero

[SageVigiles 1,194]

ISO has stated that they must have three pumpers and one aerial.

Does that remain true if its a county department? Or is ISO calculated by the county instead of the local municipality in the case of a county department?

[FFPCogs 863]

Does that remain true if its a county department? Or is ISO calculated by the county instead of the local municipality in the case of a county department?

Should he venture into this thread I'm sure Capt. Nechis can answer these questions.

As far as is consolidating a good or bad idea, I believe, and I think others may agree, that in theory it's a good idea when done in a way that integrates all the components. The practical implementation of course is quite another matter and one that has been bantered back and forth here and elsewhere many times. In a nutshell we all espouse the belief that public safety is the prime objective, but rarely do the agendas which each party brings to the table make that an easily obtainable one. VFD houses may have to close and "power" divested or removed altogether from them, while paid face layoffs, reduced possiblities for advancement and possible wage reductions. Each player is staunch in the defense of their status and in many cases have the legal authority to be so. Unfortunately as is readily apparent, compromise is rarley if ever even considered as a means to an end in achieving the result of a consolidated service be it countywide or even citywide in many cases. But as I said the possibility exists that in the near future the outsourcing and/or privatization of fire services may force all the players into a lesser of two evils corner with the end result being consolidated agencies.

Cogs

Edited March 9, 2012 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

Some would say it is already happening in Stamford.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Is this the way of of the future?

Yes and I have been warning this for the last 6 years that this was coming, get out infront of it or it could be mandated and no one will like it.

Will it happen here?

It has alread. I know a number of volunteer FD's that now pay Empress, Westchester EMS or another company to staff the ambulances. I also know of a number of VFD's that no longer respond to AFA's because no one shows up. Given time this will force the issue.

Can it be stopped?

Like I said: Do it on your own or have it forced on you from a politician who is going to save the community and the tax payer. Get out in front of this.

I think as politicians become more and more aware of this or similar options we will see an increase in consolidated and in some cases maybe even outsourced FDs. Ryebrook's experiment not withstanding outsourcing to private corporations is fast becoming the solution du jour for all manner of public services as cities and towns look to save a few bucks. Is it realistic to think that the fire service will remain immune indefinitely?

Given the option I think it would be far better to consolidate than to become part of a profit driven private sector corporation. Many here have said it and many more here realize it....it is time to consolidate no matter the obstacles. The threat of privatization may in the end bring about what years of talking, studying and arguing over hasn't...consolidation.

Well taken. Currently "privatization" is not a major threat in NYS, since at least for profit companies (like R/M) are prohibited by state law from providing municipal fire protection, but they are a major EMS provider.

The bigger threat is in the career and combo side, the slow and steady reduction in staffing, when are we going to say running 1 & 2 man rigs is unacceptable?

On the VFD side, the lack of any responders.

These 2 facts plus the tax cap, will force change (thats whats driving CA. and we are following their tax cap). Its coming.

IF this were to happen in Westchester or in CT, would it be a good thing or a bad thing?

I think it depends on how its implimented. If the fire service plans it out so that standards like NFPA & ISO are used to develop good coverage and the senior fire officials have a say in issues like apparatus, staffing, stations, SOP's, equipment, etc. It could be very good. I can also see a political mandate from the state, city or village stating: In 30 days we will transfer everything to the XYZ FD....With no say in how it will be deployed all one can say is good luck.

[Bnechis 3,961]

In our setting, I do not know how much savings can be realized by consolidation. It would appear that the savings would be realized by eliminating apparatus. How much can be saved from a department with an operating budget of $160,000 with three pumpers, one aerial and one rescue? ISO has stated that they must have three pumpers and one aerial.

While it might not save your small village a lot of money, when you consider we can drop over 100 rigs with a county wide dept, thats a lot of savings.

Does your operating budget cover everything, including the bonds to purchase apparatus and do major house work?

Yes ISO says you need 3 pumpers and a ladder. But when I plot the coverage area, ISO only requires 4 engines and 2 ladders to cover you (SHFD), Tarrytown, Archville and Pocantico Hills. Thats a lot of vehicles, stations, insurance, equipment, maintenance, fuel, etc. that you are paying for that ISo says you do not need.

And generally in a consolidation your ISO gets better. Because I know most depts do not have enough responders or training.

To further complicate the matter locally, our county is split between special tax districts and municipal departments.

This is somewhat of an issue, but some changes in state law have made it easier. Fire Districts can merge after a single public vote in each district and the vote can be forced by a petition.

Same holds true for village depts, the vote can be forced on the FD to merge or disband. So all FD's in towns and villages can be merged or disbanded (as long their is still fire coverage).

Now the 6 city FD's are much more complicated. Under state law they must exist and can not be disbanded, they can not be "merged" unless the city merges everything. It can however be contracted with another community to cover it.

So what could happen is the villages could dispand into the town. The fire districts in a town can merge and the board of fire commissoners could disolve the fire dept and contract with a city. Now if this was done, most likely they would maintain the station(s) and the city would have to staff the district stations.

2 things could change this: 1) the state could change "City" law and 2) the state could mandate a single townwide fire district (I have heard rumors of this).

Does that remain true if its a county department? Or is ISO calculated by the county instead of the local municipality in the case of a county department?

It is calculate based on the fire dept. and in this case it would then be the new and larger dept.

[FFPCogs 863]

Some would say it is already happening in Stamford.

Yes I'm sure some could see it that way, or some could say it is just the consolidating of 4 of 6 independent fire departments into one agency. A half step to be sure, but a half step towards unity nonetheless as 6 become 3.

Edited March 10, 2012 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

Yes I'm sure some could see it that way, or some could say it is just the consolidating of 4 of 6 independent fire departments into one agency. A half step to be sure, but a half step towards unity nonetheless as 6 become 3.

Or you could see it as starting a whole new fire department and hiring 50+ ff's to work in this new fire department.

[LTNRFD 266]

2 things could change this: 1) the state could change "City" law and 2) the state could mandate a single townwide fire district (I have heard rumors of this).

If the state mandates a single town wide fire district how would a department like the Village of Mamaroneck be dealt with? The Village of Mamaroneck is within 2 towns. The part of the village west of the Mamaroneck River would be part of the Town of Mamaroneck Fire District (which currently exists). The part of the village east of the Mamaroneck River is in the Town of Rye which doesn't have a fire district just 2 village fire departments ( Port Chester F.D. and Rye Brook F.D.) This would split the VMFD in half on an administrative level.

Would this single town wide fire district mandate force the Village of Mamaroneck to secede from the 2 towns and become 1) it's own town or 2) a city ?

[FFPCogs 863]

Or you could see it as starting a whole new fire department and hiring 50+ ff's to work in this new fire department.

Well I hate to have to break this to you but in most cases the end result of any consolidation IS a new fire dept. FD A, Company B and Disrict C all consolidate to become XYZ county or city FD...a NEW department. Same for mergers like North Hudson in NJ where a number of small municipal all career FDs became one new agency. As unfortunate as it is, in many cases in our region each FD/Distict is it's own small, independent and recognized organization. In effect a seperate political entity duly authorized to provide fire protection by the State and municipality in a given area. Generally when any number of these relatively small and independently recognized organizations undertake a merger, unification, consolidation or whatever other term suits, the end result will be a NEW fire department.

One could also argue that even when different FDs are absorbed into an existing agency, the end result is also a new department....especially for those absorbed.

Cogs

Edited March 10, 2012 by FFPCogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

If the state mandates a single town wide fire district how would a department like the Village of Mamaroneck be dealt with? The Village of Mamaroneck is within 2 towns. The part of the village west of the Mamaroneck River would be part of the Town of Mamaroneck Fire District (which currently exists). The part of the village east of the Mamaroneck River is in the Town of Rye which doesn't have a fire district just 2 village fire departments ( Port Chester F.D. and Rye Brook F.D.) This would split the VMFD in half on an administrative level.

Would this single town wide fire district mandate force the Village of Mamaroneck to secede from the 2 towns and become 1) it's own town or 2) a city ?

Interesting take on this.

I should have been clearer. The concept was that town law would be changed to only allow 1 fire district per town. That would not affect village departments.

It would not mean the forced merging of depts, just the boards that over see them. As an example The Town of A has 3 fire districts, overseen by 3 boards (x, y & z) each district has its own FD. If the law changes The town would become 1 district and they would determine which dept or depts would continue to exist. They could keep all 3, merge 2 and leave the 3rd alone or merge all 3.

Villages are seperate.

Where this could get sticky is what happens when a district is in 2 towns (LMFD is an example). Each town would get a single district, they could contract with the other dist to keep a multiple town dept.

[LTNRFD 266]

Interesting take on this.

I should have been clearer. The concept was that town law would be changed to only allow 1 fire district per town. That would not affect village departments.

It would not mean the forced merging of depts, just the boards that over see them. As an example The Town of A has 3 fire districts, overseen by 3 boards (x, y & z) each district has its own FD. If the law changes The town would become 1 district and they would determine which dept or depts would continue to exist. They could keep all 3, merge 2 and leave the 3rd alone or merge all 3.

Villages are seperate.

Where this could get sticky is what happens when a district is in 2 towns (LMFD is an example). Each town would get a single district, they could contract with the other dist to keep a multiple town dept.

Then the Village of Mamaroneck scenario is a non issue.

As to your explanation the Town of Greenburgh departments would fall under the one town one district rule. If this law is passed it would essentially combine the Fairview, Hartsdale and Greenville fire districts into one. Would this law be only on the administrative level or would it also combine the taxing districts?? The one administration would save the new district money but a new district wide tax district would shift more of the money burden from the Fairview section to the Edgemont section.

[gamewell45 258]

The threat of privatization may in the end bring about what years of talking, studying and arguing over hasn't...consolidation.

Cogs

Let me expand on that If I may. The chances are very real that this may not be just a veiled threat, it may become reality as municipalities and fire districts look for other ways to shift the burden of fire protection to private corporations and thus move the responsibilities fire protection, payroll, benefits, pensions and so forth on to fire protection corporations; while they are very few in numbers at this time, they could grow as time marches on.

While consolidation may reduce costs short/long term, still there is the private sector to compete against and if the cost is lower then that of the public sector it will be presented to the taxpayers as such and we all know how the taxpayers feel about taxes these days. If its sold to the public by the politicians that it'll save money, the public will embrace the concept and we will be witnessing some of the most radical changes in the fire service that we've ever seen.

I'm not saying that I agree with the concept, but it is something that all of us in the fire service need to consider, especially those in career or those seeking career positions.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Then the Village of Mamaroneck scenario is a non issue.

As to your explanation the Town of Greenburgh departments would fall under the one town one district rule.

Correct, It would also mean that the sections of Greenburgh currently controlled by the town and contracted to the Elmsford & Ardsley Village FD's would fall under this one district as well (those sections are not in either Elmsford or Ardsley).

If this law is passed it would essentially combine the Fairview, Hartsdale and Greenville fire districts into one. Would this law be only on the administrative level or would it also combine the taxing districts?? The one administration would save the new district money but a new district wide tax district would shift more of the money burden from the Fairview section to the Edgemont section.

It would be one district and unless tax laws are changed one taxing district. How much of that burden is because more money is currently spent in one than the other? (I am not saying there is, just posing a question).

In addition to the administrative savings, they would have to determine if consolidating the depts would be of financial benefit. Since they would be allowed to contract with 1, 2 or all 3 for service.

BTW that fairview/edgemont cost shift might not be an issue, since a new district could bring "new" money from the areas that are now paying taxs to the 2 villages for protection.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Bnechis

[abaduck 123]

Interesting to see the arguments about this.

I'm Scottish-born; in Scotland there is no fire brigade smaller than a county, and they're all about to be merged into a single fire and rescue service for the entire NATION!

Kinda put these little arguments about towns and villages into perspective, huh?

Mike

[Bnechis 3,961]

Interesting to see the arguments about this.

I'm Scottish-born; in Scotland there is no fire brigade smaller than a county, and they're all about to be merged into a single fire and rescue service for the entire NATION!

Kinda put these little arguments about towns and villages into perspective, huh?

Mike

Great point. It helps that they are 60 years ahead of us in consolidating to a regional level. They understand it, while we would rather spend a lot of energy fighting it.

[61MACKBR1 222]

Barry - My thoughts is that if you try to "Piece" this all together, rather than just doing 1 single wholesale consolidation might be more painful to specific districts. Why not just create 1 "County of Westchester Department of Fire/Emergency Services" Engine Company 55, Engine Company 217, Engine Company 306, Ladder Company 16, Ladder Company 11, Ladder Company 72, etc, etc, etc.

No boundries, ensuring that everyone within this county-wide department are ALL trained (or brought up to the) on the same level. No restrictions on who can go into what communities to help out.

For example, if there is a Fire Alarm at Lawrence Hospital in Bronxville, you could have "The County" send Westchester County Fire Department Engine 29, Squad 11, Ladder 16, Engine 27 and say Tower Ladder 75 and County Battalion Chielf # (Whatever) and have a better and more efficient response than having Ladder 17 come all the way down Route 22 from the North End of Eastchester or having an Engine Company come up from Chester Heights)

Correct, It would also mean that the sections of Greenburgh currently controlled by the town and contracted to the Elmsford & Ardsley Village FD's would fall under this one district as well (those sections are not in either Elmsford or Ardsley).

It would be one district and unless tax laws are changed one taxing district. How much of that burden is because more money is currently spent in one than the other? (I am not saying there is, just posing a question).

In addition to the administrative savings, they would have to determine if consolidating the depts would be of financial benefit. Since they would be allowed to contract with 1, 2 or all 3 for service.

BTW that fairview/edgemont cost shift might not be an issue, since a new district could bring "new" money from the areas that are now paying taxs to the 2 villages for protection.

[firepunk 3]

Interesting take on this.

I should have been clearer. The concept was that town law would be changed to only allow 1 fire district per town. That would not affect village departments.

It would not mean the forced merging of depts, just the boards that over see them. As an example The Town of A has 3 fire districts, overseen by 3 boards (x, y & z) each district has its own FD. If the law changes The town would become 1 district and they would determine which dept or depts would continue to exist. They could keep all 3, merge 2 and leave the 3rd alone or merge all 3.

Villages are seperate.

Where this could get sticky is what happens when a district is in 2 towns (LMFD is an example). Each town would get a single district, they could contract with the other dist to keep a multiple town dept.

Then what will happen with towns that have no district but have only village departments

[Bnechis 3,961]

Barry - My thoughts is that if you try to "Piece" this all together, rather than just doing 1 single wholesale consolidation might be more painful to specific districts.

You have always made it clear that you think 1 county dept would be best and their are problems that would have to be overcome with that as well:

1) State law would have to be changed to allow for it and their is no interest at the state or county levels to do it.

2) The county has never run anything close to this and does not have the experience to manage this.

3) Their is a major lack of trust of the county by some municipalities, which would need to be overcome.

4) The current county administration wants to merge DES & DPS even though the only thing every fire service group in the county has ever agree on is that no body wants this.

And 1 dept might also be more painful to specific depts. For example Yonkers runs 3ff/1of per rig. while others run 2/1, 1/1 or even just 1ff. It is unlikely that any units would be brought up to YFD level, so would that mean units in Yonkers would drop staffing and currently Yonkers pays the lowest per capita taxes for fire protection. So it would cost them more to get less.

No boundries, ensuring that everyone within this county-wide department are ALL trained (or brought up to the) on the same level. No restrictions on who can go into what communities to help out.

Currently 10% of the firefighters in the county are career and have one level of training. How would you get the other 90% brought up? You also have a major difference in staffing. That makes it unsafe to mix and match without major planning. I just do not see that happening.

I am in favor of consolidation when it improves service, lowers cost (without lowering service) or both. Dropping boarders looks great on paper, but there are a number of locations that the closest fire station is not fastest, because they can not get out the door.