Northern Westchester Volunteer Fire Departments Self-Consolidating

[RES24CUE 168]

It seems like there has been great debate recently about consolidation. The volunteer side of the business is trying their best to avoid forced consolidation with other neighboring departments to reduce the costs to the taxpayer caused by overlap of services/equipment. Volunteers argue that free labor saves taxpayer dollars (salaries/benefits/pensions) and that the long history and tradition of the volunteer fire service should supersede the seemingly decreasing quality of the services that we are seeing in many local departments (multiple dispatches, low manpower, etc.).

The paid side of the fire service believes that consolidating fire departments and hiring paid firefighters will reduce costs and increase service and consistency. They argue that municipalities could close a number of firehouses strategically and staff remaining departments with full-time paid firefighters. They contend that doing so would reduce costs to the taxpayer because they would be able to maintain the same response times as volunteer departments with fewer firehouses and pieces of fire apparatus (spares, specialty pieces, etc.). Regardless of the cost, the quality of service to the taxpayer would undoubtedly increase because residents would be guaranteed to receive a consistent response by well-trained, professional personnel regardless of time of day.

NOW...THE FIRST PART OF THIS WAS MERELY AN INTRO AND NOT THE TOPIC THAT I PRESENT WE DISCUSS. I KNOW THAT THIS ARGUMENT IN AND OF ITSELF IS A HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE THAT WE HAVE SEEN BEATEN TO DEATH COUNTLESS TIMES ON THIS SITE!!!

It has been my observation that many Northern Westchester fire departments are self-consolidating with other departments in recent months...

Bedford Fire Department gets dispatched with Bedford Hills, Mount Kisco, and Katonah Fire Departments Automatically upon a report of any type of structure fire (Chimney, Oven, etc.).

Vista and South Salem FIre Departments are on an automatic mutual aid for any inside smoke investigation/reported structure fires within either one of their districts.

Most recently, Golden's Bridge Fire Department is on automatic mutual aid with Croton Falls Fire Department for all Firematic Calls within their fire district.

All of these mutual aid agreements occur upon the REPORT of an incident prior to any CONFIRMATION.

Now, regardless of the monetary aspect of the debate, it seems as if many of the departments that would be the first to be placed on the chopping block if consolidation did occur are consolidating themselves in order to get the job done. These departments are increasingly forced to consolidate their services due to dwindling manpower and an inability to staff pieces of apparatus in a timely fashion and on a regular basis.

Now, I come from the volunteer side of the business and it was a passion of mine for 10 years. However, it seems to me that if you are going to send twice the number of rigs (all with half of the seats empty) from multiple fire departments to the same call to get the job done, then why don't they just put the firehouse in the middle, ride the same rig, and fill all the seats.

Is this what is slowly starting to happen?

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

[mreis95 77]

Well the Bedford automatic response has been in place for many years and is not recent. It depends on where the call is in their district and brings tankers and a ladder due to the lack of hydrants and that the fire house restricts what pieces of apparatus they can have. So it makes sense to request those trucks because if they could have them they would. So the response isn't a full department response as you leave it open to be.

I don't know anything about the others so I cannot comment on south salem and vista or the goldens bridge and croton falls situations. What is your input regarding your fire department's purpose for having Croton Falls on automatic response to every fire call? Is it manpower problems, apparatus problems or money problems, etc?

[FFPCogs 863]

However, it seems to me that if you are going to send twice the number of rigs (all with half of the seats empty) from multiple fire departments to the same call to get the job done, then why don't they just put the firehouse in the middle, ride the same rig, and fill all the seats.

I have no horse in this race, but I will offer up an observation on the point above.

While this make total sense and Westchester does have a County government on which to build, one station serving multiple jurisdictions/towns does bring forth some questions:

First off , who pays for it? And how?

What local politicians/commissioners are going to want to share or give up authority?

How do you go about ensuring equal tax payer representation/service delivery in such a multi-jurisdictional setting?

And finally, Will a centralized firehouse actually improve response times and staffing or hurt them? It would seem, at least to an extent, that it will cause issues on both counts as it could mean a father distance to travel to an incident and a longer wait for members to reach the station to staff the rigs to get there.

[SECTMB 612]

While a professionally staffed 24/7 firehouse is the ideal, it is not going to happen any time soon in the smaller towns and villages of New York. The number of 'consequential' fires on a town by town basis will not justify the increase in property taxes to support a paid staff. While responses may be on the rise, many are due to automatic dispatch and most villages/towns have only one or two major fires annually, if any at all that would be considered major, and loss of life is thankfully rare.

That the apparatus goes out with empty seats does not take into account the number of members who, hopefully, will respond directly to the scene rather than the firehouse because of their proximity to the call location and their knowledge that the apparatus is already responding.

Whether from a central location or various locations, time of day, day of week, among other factors, determines your turnout. You never know the number or make up of your crew until it shows up. That's a drawback to the volunteer system, but apparently an accepted drawback in lieu of higher taxes to supplement full time staffing.

Automatic mutual aid could also be considered automatic 'cover your ass' but regardless, the practice increases the probability that a response will occur, either by the home department or the mutual aid department and that resources, ie: apparatus and manpower, will be available to address the nature of the call.

I'm out of it a few years now, but the level of volunteer training required and necessary today is vastly improved over when I began 40 years ago. Then, our physicals were 'turn your head an cough' and now it is a full on physical, soup to nuts and your level of participation is determined by the outcome. Likewise the variety and frequent availability of courses to continue to improve yourself are out there if you want to take advantage of them.

I have lived in two different locations with County Departments. The typical house is an Engine and a Rescue (Ambulance). 3 staff the Engine, 2 staff the Rescue. The number of houses and amount of apparatus pales in comparison to Westchester County but they get it done and done well from the times I have observed them in action.

Consolidation beyond automatic mutual aid needs to be on a case by case basis, as does adding or going to full time staff, depending on the make up of the areas to be protected. I can't see the elimination of the volunteer system any time soon given the onerous taxes already imposed on the citizenry, particularyl in Westchester.

Now, as far as EMS....the volunteer system has seen it's best years. Transition to full time services is the only answer to the repeat dispatches for EMS crews.

[Bnechis 3,961]

1) The paid side of the fire service believes that consolidating fire departments and hiring paid firefighters will reduce costs and increase service and consistency. They argue that municipalities could close a number of firehouses strategically and staff remaining departments with full-time paid firefighters.

2) It has been my observation that many Northern Westchester fire departments are self-consolidating with other departments in recent months...

3) Most recently, Golden's Bridge Fire Department is on automatic mutual aid with Croton Falls Fire Department for all Firematic Calls within their fire district...........All of these mutual aid agreements occur upon the REPORT of an incident prior to any CONFIRMATION.

4) Now, regardless of the monetary aspect of the debate, it seems as if many of the departments that would be the first to be placed on the chopping block if consolidation did occur are consolidating themselves in order to get the job done. These departments are increasingly forced to consolidate their services due to dwindling manpower and an inability to staff pieces of apparatus in a timely fashion and on a regular basis.

5) However, it seems to me that if you are going to send twice the number of rigs (all with half of the seats empty) from multiple fire departments to the same call to get the job done, then why don't they just put the firehouse in the middle, ride the same rig, and fill all the seats.

Lots of material to cover here.

1) First I understand your examples are suppose to be theoretical, but Who from the "paid side" has been advocating this? The career fire service has been advocating proper training and staffing for every response. The career side has not been "arguing" to replace volunteers in Northern Westchester.

2) I know of no departments in Westchester that are "self-Consolidating". Yes many are assisting each other on a more regular basis. Consolidation is much more involved and includes the merging of administrative and/or operational towards becoming a single entity.

Same Chief(s), Same SOP's, planning & purchasing based on the combined area. Same training, same drills, same meetings, etc.

3) Their are 2 terms accepted by NFPA, ISO & The NYS Insurance Commissioner; Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid. Neither of these are consolidation, they are helping each other out. One is done thru pre arraignment, while the other requires an action to occur.

4) Since most of the departments in Northern Westchester are fire districts, none of these are "on the chopping block" until/if the state gets tougher and "forces" the issue. They have not gotten close to this (yet). I do not believe that any of these departments in recent years has not purchased a replacement rig, which while working with the neighbors would be a major 1st step in consolidation.

I applaud the leadership of these depts. for finally realizing that without automatic aid they can no longer function safely or provide the level of service that the community believes they are paying for.

5) Because the distances are too great. Now that being said, a proper consolidation requires substantial planning and determining where resources are needed (including frequency) and where they are. Based on my knowledge of the existing department locations in Northern Westchester, almost every station is needed and should be staffed with an engine and most likely a tanker. That means the remaining 1,2, or 3 engines in the house may no longer be needed in a consolidated dept. Specialty units do not need to be in every house and that's part of the planning to determine where they should go. If each dept. had only 1 or 2 apparatus to be responsible for staffing, it would more likely roll with a proper response.

[Bnechis 3,961]

1) While this make total sense and Westchester does have a County government on which to build, one station serving multiple jurisdictions/towns does bring forth some questions:

2) First off , who pays for it? And how?

3) What local politicians/commissioners are going to want to share or give up authority?

4) How do you go about ensuring equal tax payer representation/service delivery in such a multi-jurisdictional setting?

5) And finally, Will a centralized firehouse actually improve response times and staffing or hurt them? It would seem, at least to an extent, that it will cause issues on both counts as it could mean a father distance to travel to an incident and a longer wait for members to reach the station to staff the rigs to get there.

You bring up a number of great issues.

1) NYS Law specifically prohibits counties from running/providing fire protection.

2) Currently, all fire departments in Westchester are tax funded either through fire district tax or municipal tax. Their are mechanisms in NYS law to continue this under a consolidation. The bigger problem is how much does each property pay now and will they pay the same amount under a consolidation.

3) Very few. Most politicians are afraid to even bring up the issue as their have been many examples over the years of volunteer membership affecting the outcome of local elections.

4) Very difficult, but can be done with proper planning and openness. Generally when one looks at voter turnout (particularly for fire district elections) the public is not represented anyway. The service delivery can only improve. How many departments are now responding to a dryer fire? It use to be 1.

5) A single is not viable in such a large area.

[Jybehofd 85]

consolidation would be nice but i don't think it will every happen up hear.. I have heard rumours over the past two years or so of the departments of South Salem Vista Golden's Bridge and at time Croton Falls all consolidating under one tax district but this has all been rumours and in many different combinations of these departments. I know of some places that have mutal-aid members, I know Bedford Village has a few and some other departments. It seems like a good idea to increase manpower of people that work in the town/village during the day. A long time ago I'm not actually sure when maybe 5 years ago or more i heard rumours of all the towns in Bedford coming together as one but it didn't last long at all. It would be interesting to see and to see the actual set up of how it would work. But other things still baffle my mind like how neighbouring towns in another state can be all AHA heart saving towns and yet the survival in this area is well far below.

[Sean11FD 3]

.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Sean11FD

[JM15 386]

Most recently, Golden's Bridge Fire Department is on automatic mutual aid with Croton Falls Fire Department for all Firematic Calls within their fire district.

Is that going to be temporary or permanent thing?

[antiquefirelt 994]

I have lived in two different locations with County Departments. The typical house is an Engine and a Rescue (Ambulance). 3 staff the Engine, 2 staff the Rescue. The number of houses and amount of apparatus pales in comparison to Westchester County but they get it done and done well from the times I have observed them in action.

One of the biggest reasons that many short staffed units (3 man engine and 2 man rescues) can be as effective or more than many VFD's with a larger turn-out is the daily routines that the crews work together. Having a crew know their assignments at the time of dispatch, a distinct clear chain of command and a history of working together to accomplish tasks (on and off the fireground) allows them to work more efficiently in many cases. I've worked with some great volunteer firefighters who were excellent in training, but were not as effective on a real fireground as some fairly green career companies.

Some VFD's have great policies and structure that allow them to operate very effectively, while many others require the IC to make order out of the chaos of the personnel responding as well as the incident. Typically the IC is also a volunteer who has less time commanding the chaos of a tough incident and is also forced to work through which personnel are up to the tasks. We have both scenarios in my FD, with both career staff and a small (dwindling fast) core of paid/call firefighters.

[CFFD117 19]

Is that going to be temporary or permanent thing?

temporary, after may 1 CFFD wont be automatic MA to GBFD

[JM15 386]

temporary, after may 1 CFFD wont be automatic MA to GBFD

Thats what I thought.... thanks

[RES24CUE 168]

3) Their are 2 terms accepted by NFPA, ISO & The NYS Insurance Commissioner; Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid. Neither of these are consolidation, they are helping each other out. One is done thru pre arraignment, while the other requires an action to occur.

I am familiar with the NFPA definitions. However, they have no basis or bearing on my position.

It is my opinion (any my opinion only) that when a department calls another neighboring department to assist them with an extraordinary, not-your-average call where they require assistance beyond the resources that a fire department would reasonably be expected to provide, then that is a justified and necessary use of the mutual aid system. However, when departments consistently respond together because they are unable to deliver the services that a fire protection organization would reasonably be expected to provide, then that would constitute a "consolidation of services."

Now, I would like to establish that there is a major difference between consolidating services and consolidating organizations as I feel that my initial post may have been somewhat lost in translation. When TWO departments are responding together on a regular basis in order to provide the same services that ONE emergency services organization would reasonably be expected to provide, then that would constitute a "consolidation of services." Therefore, they are acknowledging that they are unable to deliver adequate fire protection services on a regular basis WITH ANY CERTAINTY as an independent organization and must rely on a coordinated response to guarantee that the response that is expected by a reasonable citizen in return for his or her fire protection tax dollars is delivered. This should in no way be confused with a consolidation of organizations in which two organizations merge and operate under one unified command and under a singular budget, with consolidate resources (equipment, apparatus, buildings), and universal SOGs.

I believe that these are two distinct but correlated premises. I propose that "consolidation of services" is a distant precursor to an eventual consolidation of organizations. As departments rely on eachother more-and-more due to a lack of manpower (which I propose will only get worse despite the valiant recruiting efforts of our volunteers), it will eventually (and this may be years or decades away) become apparent that they should merge organizations in order to increase efficiency and expedite progress.

Just a side note, I also belive that it is not fair for residents of a certain fire district to pay taxes so that their deparment can reguarly respond to a neighboring fire district. For instance, (I will cite this example as it seems to be the most pertinent) why should North Salem residents pay for the increased costs (fuel, maintenance, etc.) for their fire department (CFFD) to respond to Golden's Bridge on a regular basis for every automatic alarm and food-on-the-stove call? Even though it is a temporary situation and arguably the "decent thing to do" if their neighboring department is in trouble, it is not right for the taxpayers in the neighboring community to incur the increased costs becasue the fire deparment within that distict cannot provide reasonably expected emergency services.

[Jybehofd 85]

I think CFFD is responding to GBFD for other reason then consolidation..... can anyone but some light on the subject?

[RES24CUE 168]

I will attempt to be diplomatic...

Their Chief resigned as a result of an incident that occurred after the New Year.

A number of their Chiefs/Officers/Members are temporarily unable to participate as a result of an incident that occurred after the New Year.

And this all happened after a bad period of membership during which a number of their long-time Officers and members resigned, quit, or moved away for various reasons.

Therefore, they have a shortage of Commanders / Members at this time.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Perfect opportunity to actually consolidate then. Sadly most don't take the opportunity.

[RES24CUE 168]

Article from the local paper...

http://www.lewisboroledger.com/9779/tockstein-resigns-as-fire-chief/

Why was everyone who was interviewed so vague?

Don't the taxpayers have a right to know exactly what is going on with their fire department? After all, their tax dollars are funding it...

[Bnechis 3,961]

Don't the taxpayers have a right to know exactly what is going on with their fire department? After all, their tax dollars are funding it...

No its our private club and its about us, not about fire protection.

[FFPCogs 863]

Don't the taxpayers have a right to know exactly what is going on with their fire department? After all, their tax dollars are funding it...

I would say yes they do have that right, but in all fairness do they exercise it? Unless Westchester is very different from anywhere else the taxpayers have an opportunity to address any questions or grievances by attending their local Fire Commission meeting which by law must be open to the public. Do they attend them?

[Bnechis 3,961]

I would say yes they do have that right, but in all fairness do they exercise it? Unless Westchester is very different from anywhere else the taxpayers have an opportunity to address any questions or grievances by attending their local Fire Commission meeting which by law must be open to the public. Do they attend them?

They do not attend, they do not vote, they do not volunteer, they don't want their taxes spent on it and they believe that they will never need to call 9-1-1. And as they dial 9-1-1 they pray to god that the PD, FD, EMS are well trained, properly staffed and equipped and they respond instantly.

How often have we heard it took 40 minutes for them to respond (while the tape shows 4 minutes)?

And with the me attitude that is growing, it will only get worst.

[RES24CUE 168]

I would say yes they do have that right, but in all fairness do they exercise it? Unless Westchester is very different from anywhere else the taxpayers have an opportunity to address any questions or grievances by attending their local Fire Commission meeting which by law must be open to the public. Do they attend them?

They do not attend, they do not vote, they do not volunteer, they don't want their taxes spent on it and they believe that they will never need to call 9-1-1. And as they dial 9-1-1 they pray to god that the PD, FD, EMS are well trained, properly staffed and equipped and they respond instantly.

How often have we heard it took 40 minutes for them to respond (while the tape shows 4 minutes)?

And with the me attitude that is growing, it will only get worst.

From my experience, every time there is a major issue at hand that could potentially be of some type of embarassment to the fire department or the fire district, the commissioners say that it is somehow related to a personnel issue (Obviously!!! How else would the department be embarassed if not by the actions of an individual or group of individuals) and that it must be discussed in a closed door meeting. They then return to the floor and any questions asked regarding the issue are deflected by saying that "it is connected to a personnel issue and connot be discussed for fear of litigation" (exactly what was said in the aforecited article by the Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners). Then, if a newspaper or reporter asks any question about a personnel matter, the Commissioners buy time by saying that the reporter must FOIL them. Then after they get the FOIL request, they defer to the same tactic and say that they can't discuss personnel issues.

SO WHY WOULD THE PUBLIC ATTEND? I was a 10 year member of the emergency services community (5 years as an Officer) and it didn't take me longer than a year to stop going to those meetings because all of the pertinent matters are discussed behind closed doors. The commissioners were talking about things that directly impacted me as a firefighter and I got fed up and wrote those meetings off as a waste of my time. Why should John Q Taxpayer feel any different? Just like everything else with politicians, they hide behind smoke screens, generalities, and procedure until taxpayers who have legeitimate questions about their emergency services get fed up and determine that its not worth their time to figure seek the answers that they desire. They then curse the Department, the Chiefs, and the Commissioners under their breath and tell their entire circle of friends within the community over dinners and drinks about their awful experience with the Fire Department (they generalize) and what bad corrupt people they are. Then neither they nor their friends within the community attend, vote, or volunteer (or donate).

I think some people in this business (no reflection on you Bnechis or FFPCogs as I truly appreciate your posts/views) have a tendency to say "why is the public doing this to us?" instead of "What are we doing to make the public think of us in this light?" and "How are we driving people away?" The emergency services can blame the kids who grew up with a silver spoon in their mouths; they can blame the businessmen who have no time for their community; they can blame the economy for creating stagnant conditions that require people to work so hard that they have no time to volunteer; they can blame video games. BUT IN MY OPINION, THEY SHOULD REALLY TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND ASK THEMSELVES WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO MAKE PEOPLE NOT WANT TO ATTEND, VOTE, OR VOLUNTEER. After all, how is your retention rate? Most places can't even keep the people that are interested to begin with.

Just like your reputation within the department, it takes 10 "atta boys" to get rid of one "oh s***." Does your organization have 10 equally weighted positive articles published (or stories/rumors spread around the community) about it for every 1 negative article that has been published about it in the recent past. I can tell you with complete certainty that the organization with which I was previously affiliated absolutely does not. The emergency services are not getting a bad rap out of thin air.

[Bnechis 3,961]

From my experience, every time there is a major issue at hand that could potentially be of some type of embarassment to the fire department or the fire district, the commissioners say that it is somehow related to a personnel issue (Obviously!!! How else would the department be embarassed if not by the actions of an individual or group of individuals) and that it must be discussed in a closed door meeting. They then return to the floor and any questions asked regarding the issue are deflected by saying that "it is connected to a personnel issue and connot be discussed for fear of litigation" (exactly what was said in the aforecited article by the Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners). Then, if a newspaper or reporter asks any question about a personnel matter, the Commissioners buy time by saying that the reporter must FOIL them. Then after they get the FOIL request, they defer to the same tactic and say that they can't discuss personnel issues.

SO WHY WOULD THE PUBLIC ATTEND? I was a 10 year member of the emergency services community (5 years as an Officer) and it didn't take me longer than a year to stop going to those meetings because all of the pertinent matters are discussed behind closed doors. The commissioners were talking about things that directly impacted me as a firefighter and I got fed up and wrote those meetings off as a waste of my time. Why should John Q Taxpayer feel any different? Just like everything else with politicians, they hide behind smoke screens, generalities, and procedure until taxpayers who have legeitimate questions about their emergency services get fed up and determine that its not worth their time to figure seek the answers that they desire. They then curse the Department, the Chiefs, and the Commissioners under their breath and tell their entire circle of friends within the community over dinners and drinks about their awful experience with the Fire Department (they generalize) and what bad corrupt people they are. Then neither they nor their friends within the community attend, vote, or volunteer (or donate).

I think some people in this business (no reflection on you Bnechis or FFPCogs as I truly appreciate your posts/views) have a tendency to say "why is the public doing this to us?" instead of "What are we doing to make the public think of us in this light?" and "How are we driving people away?" The emergency services can blame the kids who grew up with a silver spoon in their mouths; they can blame the businessmen who have no time for their community; they can blame the economy for creating stagnant conditions that require people to work so hard that they have no time to volunteer; they can blame video games. BUT IN MY OPINION, THEY SHOULD REALLY TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND ASK THEMSELVES WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO MAKE PEOPLE NOT WANT TO ATTEND, VOTE, OR VOLUNTEER. After all, how is your retention rate? Most places can't even keep the people that are interested to begin with.

Just like your reputation within the department, it takes 10 "atta boys" to get rid of one "oh s***." Does your organization have 10 equally weighted positive articles published (or stories/rumors spread around the community) about it for every 1 negative article that has been published about it in the recent past. I can tell you with complete certainty that the organization with which I was previously affiliated absolutely does not. The emergency services are not getting a bad rap out of thin air.

Great Post. Should be required reading.

[RES24CUE 168]

Great Post. Should be required reading.

Thank you sir.

[breezly 6]

I was one of the long time members of the Golden's Bridge Fire Department who left due to the conditions within the department and the Fire District Board of Commissioners. The culture there was ridden with cronyism among other activities that were not within the letter of the law.

I personally left after vandalization of my personal vehicle, chronic tampering with my fire personal protective equipment and finally an overt threat on May 10. 2010. The then chief Walter Hughes filed a report with the fire district stating that he suspected up to eight individuals were suspected of the gear tampering and continued harassment. The fire district never performed interviews nor provided an investigation report. When I inquired about the report being shared with me, I was told by Board of Commissioners Chairman Ed Brancati that I was not entitled to a report and was told he could "tell me whatever the hell he wanted".

We hired lawyers and filed an Article 78 with Westchester county regarding the actions of the leadership of the fire department. The article was never reviewed for reasons unknown even thought the court is legally bound to review within a set period of time.

There is, to this day, a very bad cancer in this department and fire district. The approach of "handling this within house" is not correcting the actions or making the community safer. The district should be required to submit a public report on the activities related to the issues documents in my blog www.gbfdx2144.blogspot.com. The district now should also file a public report regarding the issues experienced on the fire scene of 37 Fairmount Drive on January 11, 2014. There was a very dangerous situation that evening where many people could have been injured or worse yet killed due to the poor choices made by the leadership of the Golden's Bridge Fire Department and Fire District Board of Commissioners. The structure fire response that evening was at the end of their annual Chief's holiday party attended by members of the department and likely the Board of Fire Commissioners. Fire Department apparatus and personnel responded to a fire scene when they clearly should not have. The public who are funding the equipment these individuals are charged with managing have the right to know how this environment is being managed. The public also needs to understand the management of budgetary items and retirement funding.

[GBFD111 73]

Breezly,

You are missing the overall point of what this initial post is saying. The topic here is consolidation within the fire districts that we live in, not to put down any department, individuals, etc. Relating to the fire that you are speaking of, I personally was not there because I have moved away but as most people know there is more gossip and rumors that go around a fire house, or firehouses, then a teenage girl in high school.

Anyway, going back to the topic in hand...

I have recently moved away from Westchester County and I am seeing this issue that RES24CUE has brought up in the department I am affiliated with in St. Lawrence County. We though are on the other end of it. Many of these rural departments near us can practically NEVER get a rig out of service and always depend on us for mutual aid. First off, if we go to one of these departments (which do not have a lot of money) and crash one of our rigs THEY will have to the cost of it. This will indubitably create tension between firehouses. One of these rural departments I have heard had to borrow money from the town to put new bay doors on their barn, I mean station so they can keep fixing their trucks they never use. Now what happens when we have an serious call in our district when our apparatus is covering what you can't handle? Call mutual aid again?

Some of these departments only have maybe 15-20 fireman and are on the outskirts of our township, maybe 6-7 minutes away. If we consolidate these departments we can consolidate all of our resources, and have nicer toys to break.

Its sad to say but I am seeing a full volunteer fire department a thing of the past. Here in Canton, moving towards the Ambulance side, we now have a paid ALS provider for our ambulances between 6AM-4PM Monday through Friday, and have been relying on volunteers to drive. All other hours of the day is solely volunteer ran both BLS and ALS. This worked for a while but during the regular work day it can be hard to get drivers and people who can volunteer their time for an hour and a half, praying that there will not be another call right before you get back in service that you will get forced into taking. Now as a department, we are talking about hiring a paid driver during the day and to be all volunteer during the evenings.

We need to start looking into consolidation between departments, using money that we will save in rig costs as well as other budget cuts, to cover larger fire district with paid adequate manpower during the day. One can make the argument of "well you aren't going to get there faster." What is better, having a fully staffed rig and taking a little longer to get there, or having a half staffed rig exceeding what they can initially handle. After the work day ends, let volunteers come and volunteer within their community that they are proud of serving.

Thoughts?

[Bnechis 3,961]

One can make the argument of "well you aren't going to get there faster." What is better, having a fully staffed rig and taking a little longer to get there, or having a half staffed rig exceeding what they can initially handle.

Thoughts?

The NIST studies scientifically prove this.

Also better to get a fully staffed crew with a longer distance, than no one showing up, but the rigs are parked in the empty fire house just down the road.

[antiquefirelt 994]

First off, if we go to one of these departments (which do not have a lot of money) and crash one of our rigs THEY will have to the cost of it. This will indubitably create tension between firehouses.

Your Mutual Aid agreements require the requesting FD cover the insurance or cost of damaged equipment (and personnel)? I've never heard of this. How would a member know if he/she was adequately covered when responding out of district? If this were the case, I'd think everyone would use a spare or reserve piece as their mutual aid apparatus, and I'd think few personnel would risk their lives and livelihoods for an unknown if they were injured or worse.

[thebreeze 194]

Your Mutual Aid agreements require the requesting FD cover the insurance or cost of damaged equipment (and personnel)? I've never heard of this. How would a member know if he/she was adequately covered when responding out of district? If this were the case, I'd think everyone would use a spare or reserve piece as their mutual aid apparatus, and I'd think few personnel would risk their lives and livelihoods for an unknown if they were injured or worse.

Actually I am pretty sure that it's fairly standard, well down in NY at least. Also I don't think it has anything to do with the mutual aid agreements, I think it is mostly driven by the insurance side of things. The requesting department is responsible for the cost of any of the mutual aid departments equipment damaged while operating at an incident in their district. I am not certain about personnel but I am fairly certain they are still covered under their own department and either way have equal protection under the states benefit laws and workers compensation.

[RES24CUE 168]

Actually I am pretty sure that it's fairly standard, well down in NY at least. Also I don't think it has anything to do with the mutual aid agreements, I think it is mostly driven by the insurance side of things. The requesting department is responsible for the cost of any of the mutual aid departments equipment damaged while operating at an incident in their district. I am not certain about personnel but I am fairly certain they are still covered under their own department and either way have equal protection under the states benefit laws and workers compensation.

I know for a fact that at the last major fire in the district of the department with which I was previously affiliated, two tankers collided during the tanker shuttle, both from neighboring departments, and the costs incurred for repairs were paid by the insurance of the hosting department.

[RES24CUE 168]

Its sad to say but I am seeing a full volunteer fire department a thing of the past. Here in Canton, moving towards the Ambulance side, we now have a paid ALS provider for our ambulances between 6AM-4PM Monday through Friday, and have been relying on volunteers to drive. All other hours of the day is solely volunteer ran both BLS and ALS. This worked for a while but during the regular work day it can be hard to get drivers and people who can volunteer their time for an hour and a half, praying that there will not be another call right before you get back in service that you will get forced into taking. Now as a department, we are talking about hiring a paid driver during the day and to be all volunteer during the evenings.

We need to start looking into consolidation between departments, using money that we will save in rig costs as well as other budget cuts, to cover larger fire district with paid adequate manpower during the day. One can make the argument of "well you aren't going to get there faster." What is better, having a fully staffed rig and taking a little longer to get there, or having a half staffed rig exceeding what they can initially handle. After the work day ends, let volunteers come and volunteer within their community that they are proud of serving.

Thoughts?

GBFD 111,

I don't think that response times will be affected negatively at all. Most volunteer fire departments take 5-10 minutes just for the members to get to the firehouse, gear-up, wait for a driver, and go. So the rig doesn't even get on the road for a solid 5-10 minutes after the initial dispatch. AND this is on a good day! 5-10 minutes is the delay in response time in the event that the fire department gets out on the first dispatch...we all know of a number of departments that require more than one dispatch to get a rig on the road (many of them were the ones that I was talking about in my initial post). So, in theory, if we spaced firehouses 5 minutes further apart than they currently are and staffed them with full time firefighters, it seems to me that they would have the same response times that volunteer fire departments currently have on a good day (allowing them a 2 minute window to gear up and get on the road). I even think we could space those fire departments even further apart and still improve the average response times of many departments in certain regions.

I am basing these estimates on response times for an actual piece of fire apparatus...NOT A CHIEF CAR. I know that response times are gauged by the time it takes for the first unit to respond and get on scene and Chief units greatly improve these numbers. I am talking about the time that it takes to get an engine, ladder, rescue etc. with a crew on the scene. And, I don't consider the rig going to the scene and 5 people meeting the truck in their POVs adequate either. That is not a coordinated fire response...it is a friggin' mess. If you are considering this approach in response times, then you would have to add 5 extra minutes on the back end of the response after the rig gets there to find out who is there (and where), gather all of your freelancers, give out assignments, and put them in order so that they can actually stretch a line, vent the roof and perform a search. Anyone who considers this a professional fire department response most certainly has a different definition of professional than I do. No REASONABLE fire department on the planet would consider this method an organized, professional, effective fire department response.