Northern Westchester Volunteer Fire Departments Self-Consolidating

[antiquefirelt 994]

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?

I think it's a little more difficult to compare Fire and EMS when it come to a "staffed" response capability. I fully agree the an adequate response time of the FD side requires a company of firefighters that can begin actual mitigation, not a chief's vehicle (which can/should begin some important activities such as size-up and response modification). But on the EMS side, an adequately trained and equipped first responder can begin actual care, while the transport unit comes from a greater, but reasonable distance. This is why sending EMS personnel of fire apparatus works in so many places. As far as claiming response times based on first arriving units, my thought is that this should be limited to units with actual incident stabilizing capability ie: an engine company or equipped medic (or BLS if it's a BLS call) unit. In the long run if we could utilize an incident stabilaztion time as the true measure of response time, we'd have a more accurate depiction of actual capability. Thus the true measure would be from the time 911 answers until the time the fire is contained or the patient is stabilized (of course some don't get better ever...)

On the EMS side, the town where I live just contracted with a new EMS provider after decades of a local service providing EMS. One of the things many of us asked for was a measure of the time from 911 to the time the most appropriate level of care arrived at the patient. This was a significant measure during the bidding process as a few bidders (including the previous service) were utilizing BLS trucks and on call ALS. Very often the response time for the ambulance was OK, but the actual time to get a medic to an MI call or other ALS call was far longer if at all. Thankfully the service that got the contract is an all ALS service, thus their response time places a medic on the call when the ambulance arrives.

[38ff 250]

NY state law says that the district REQUESTING the mutual aid is liable for damage to any equipment/apparatus that it requested, and the district GIVING the mutual aid is liable for the personnel. For example the, North Fire District has a worker, and they call the South Fire District for mutual aid. While enroute (or on scene or while returning), the SFD apparatus gets into an accident. The NFD is 100% responsible for the apparatus (cost of repair/replacement/etc) The SFD is 100% responsible (workers comp etc) for their personnel.

[antiquefirelt 994]

NY state law says that the district REQUESTING the mutual aid is liable for damage to any equipment/apparatus that it requested, and the district GIVING the mutual aid is liable for the personnel. For example the, North Fire District has a worker, and they call the South Fire District for mutual aid. While enroute (or on scene or while returning), the SFD apparatus gets into an accident. The NFD is 100% responsible for the apparatus (cost of repair/replacement/etc) The SFD is 100% responsible (workers comp etc) for their personnel.

That's an interesting law, as it puts the responsibility for damage with those who have the least amount of control over preventing it, short of not calling for assistance. I know I'd certainly limit the amount of time I'd be calling FD's that didn't have a minimum standard I could verify. I suspect this may be one decent justification for those times when people here complain that career FD's don't utilize closer VFD's.

[38ff 250]

Or perhaps it keeps the incident commander from calling assets he doesn't really need as he(or his district technically) is now on the hook for responsibility for it.

[thebreeze 194]

That's an interesting law, as it puts the responsibility for damage with those who have the least amount of control over preventing it, short of not calling for assistance. I know I'd certainly limit the amount of time I'd be calling FD's that didn't have a minimum standard I could verify. I suspect this may be one decent justification for those times when people here complain that career FD's don't utilize closer VFD's.

Think of it this way, you wanted to play with someone else's toys, or you don't have enough toys to play with, and if their toys get broken playing your game, its your responsibility to fix them. You are the one asking them to bring their vehicles and equipment into your district, so you are ultimately the one most capable of preventing an incident, by handling it yourself and not calling them. You ask them to come help you, they do it to aid you, not because they are obligated, they do it out of that brotherhood spirit everyone on here talks about so much. So when you call for them, and ask them to put themselves in harms way, yeah it's ultimately your responsibility. Say they come into your district for a fire and through extreme circumstances, not under anyone's control, they end up losing a first due piece of apparatus, what are they supposed to tell their taxpayers? Sorry folks you have to buck up for another engine because we lost ours protecting the taxpayers three towns away? That wouldn't be right would it? The way it is designed to work is fair, especially because it works both ways, also, this is what districts carry insurance for no?

Or perhaps it keeps the incident commander from calling assets he doesn't really need as he(or his district technically) is now on the hook for responsibility for it.

I truly hope no IC would hesitate to call for help because he's worried about that. Any time you feel you could use more help, ask for it. You wouldn't want to be that IC second guessing himself while visiting your brothers in the hospital or God forbid standing watching that caisson. All for what, you were worried about your fire districts insurance premiums going up? If a Commissioner ever had the balls to try and tell his Chief to not call mutual aid because of something like that I think that would be grounds for removal.

Edited February 5, 2014 by thebreeze

[38ff 250]

I said assets he really doesn't need. If he needs them, call them by all means. Any commissioner who tells the chief what to do for mutual aid is WAY WAY WAY overstepping his bounds legally.

[Bnechis 3,961]

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.

The mutual aid agreement lists it so that everyone is aware. It is actually state law.

NY state law says that the district REQUESTING the mutual aid is liable for damage to any equipment/apparatus that it requested, and the district GIVING the mutual aid is liable for the personnel. For example the, North Fire District has a worker, and they call the South Fire District for mutual aid. While enroute (or on scene or while returning), the SFD apparatus gets into an accident. The NFD is 100% responsible for the apparatus (cost of repair/replacement/etc) The SFD is 100% responsible (workers comp etc) for their personnel.

The law goes back to the 30's which at the time, mutual aid was generally only called for major disasters. At that point it was felt that the requester should be responsible if the building collapses on a bunch of rigs. I suspect they never considered vehicle accidents in route to the incident.

That's an interesting law, as it puts the responsibility for damage with those who have the least amount of control over preventing it, short of not calling for assistance. I know I'd certainly limit the amount of time I'd be calling FD's that didn't have a minimum standard I could verify. I suspect this may be one decent justification for those times when people here complain that career FD's don't utilize closer VFD's.

And some wonder why they get skipped and other departments that are further away get called.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I guess I'm seeing it through my local view. We respond mutual aid and cover our personnel and apparatus/equipment as do our mutual aid partners. When you come to our 'burg you cover your assets. If mutual aid is mutual, it all works out over the stretch of time.

I'd be concerned having to cover the costs of equipment operated by persons who I cannot verify are capable and qualified to operate and of the equipment that may or not be properly maintained. Up here the insurance costs are already being covered by the FD that owns the equipment, I doubt our policy writers would cover a mutual aid piece that they have no knowledge of and cannot impose their requirements on. I know today if my city council had to cough up $500k to cover an engine from outside, we'd lose a firefighter per shift. The budget wire is as close as it can be without losing personnel.

Edited February 6, 2014 by antiquefirelt

[antiquefirelt 994]

And some wonder why they get skipped and other departments that are further away get called.

No doubt another "risk minimization" decision, I fully understand and would do the same coupled with other issues. This is not a pot shot at volunteers, but the system breeds this inequality when the standards departments are held to differ so greatly.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Say they come into your district for a fire and through extreme circumstances, not under anyone's control, they end up losing a first due piece of apparatus, what are they supposed to tell their taxpayers? Sorry folks you have to buck up for another engine because we lost ours protecting the taxpayers three towns away?

Are these apparatuses not insured? I'd think smaller towns would be forced to carry insurance so they didn't have to suddenly find big bucks when first due apparatus is damaged regardless of where the incident occurred? Does the insurance only go to the town line? If so, what about vehicle insurance covering personnel while out of district? Here's another wrinkle: Who pays if you crash the engine at a parade in another town? Seriously? Parade host?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Are these apparatuses not insured? I'd think smaller towns would be forced to carry insurance so they didn't have to suddenly find big bucks when first due apparatus is damaged regardless of where the incident occurred? Does the insurance only go to the town line? If so, what about vehicle insurance covering personnel while out of district? Here's another wrinkle: Who pays if you crash the engine at a parade in another town? Seriously? Parade host?

The host only pays if its mutual aid, because they called them in.

From an insurance cost, its a wash:

NYS: I pay for my rigs & your rigs in my town and you pay for my rigs & your rigs in your town

Other States: I pay for mine only (all the time) and you pay for yours (all the time).

Same total risk.

[38ff 250]

Parades are not emergencies or mutual aid events, and the owning district covers them.

[antiquefirelt 994]

The host only pays if its mutual aid, because they called them in.

From an insurance cost, its a wash:

NYS: I pay for my rigs & your rigs in my town and you pay for my rigs & your rigs in your town

Other States: I pay for mine only (all the time) and you pay for yours (all the time).

Same total risk.

I see the point, but I'd think controlling your own risks is a better overall scenario. But short of a situation that blows up in someones face, it appears to be a non-issue. Just another interesting thing I get to learn along the way. As a student of the fire service as a whole, I enjoy seeing how things are done everywhere, right, wrong or indifferent.

[thebreeze 194]

I said assets he really doesn't need. If he needs them, call them by all means. Any commissioner who tells the chief what to do for mutual aid is WAY WAY WAY overstepping his bounds legally.

Regardless, really needs, need, doesn't need, doesn't really need, none of these have anything to do with why such policies are in effect.

[thebreeze 194]

Are these apparatuses not insured? I'd think smaller towns would be forced to carry insurance so they didn't have to suddenly find big bucks when first due apparatus is damaged regardless of where the incident occurred? Does the insurance only go to the town line? If so, what about vehicle insurance covering personnel while out of district? Here's another wrinkle: Who pays if you crash the engine at a parade in another town? Seriously? Parade host?

Why should my insurance pay when I am coming at your behest? The only reason I am on the road is because you called me out, otherwise the rigs would be safe and sound in their bays. You took the toys out of the box, you pay when they break.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Why should my insurance pay when I am coming at your behest?

Because when you call me I'll come and cover my own too? Mutual aid implies we both need each other, so when I come to your aid, I anticipate you'll return the favor. If you break your truck on my call, who's too say it wouldn't have broken on your own next call? Can my insurance company review your training and maintenance records and contest the claim?

Again, hey if it works in NY, I've got no issue with how you guys do your thing, but as someone who has to look at amending mutual aid agreements and the value of any agency providing assistance to my own area, I'd have a concern being required to cover the costs of things I have little control over. Given the rate we go out of town vs. receive aid, I might go to Town A 10 times with a fully staffed company of fully qualified firefighters, yet the 1 time they repay me, a guy with very little training and experience could crash their overloaded tanker and we'd be responsible for their accident costs?

I know our driver training policies and how the enforcement of rules goes within my FD, but I have little control or knowledge of the mutual aid depts. I know the maintenance issues, policies and upkeep of our apparatus, I certainly question those of some of the FD's around us. As an IC, I'm responsible therefore I fear anything I can't control but am liable for. It appears not to have bitten you folks, so maybe it's a non-issue, but being in a place that requires everyone be responsible for their equipment and costs eliminates any financial liability from the equation. I still have to worry about ensuring the safety of those whose training and experience I can't truly verify.

[38ff 250]

Here is a better description of the mutual aid "who is responsible for what" law.

§21:30.2 MUTUAL AID RESPONSE

Benefits will be paid in the following situation: while, within the state, personally assisting another fire department, Fire Company or any unit thereof when the active volunteer firefighter has offered his or her services to the officer in charge of such other fire department, Fire Company or any unit thereof and such services have been accepted. If injured, the active volunteer firefighter must file his or her notice of injury and claim with the secretary of the Board of Fire Commissioners of the district in which he or she offered his or her services. VFBL §5 (1-, General Municipal Law § 209-I

§27:70.2 HOME RULE

Under the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law, coverage for injured or deceased volunteer firefighters remains the obligation of the fire district or municipality to which such injured or deceased volunteer firefighter is or was a member. This is so, regardless of where the volunteer firefighter was injured or killed. This is known as the “home” district responsibility. General Municipal Law §209.1.

§27:70.3 EQUIPMENT DAMAGE

Equipment damage occurring under the mutual circumstances, however, is different. The calling department assumes responsibility for damage or loss of equipment. A fire district that responds to a mutual alarm call, and sustains damage to its equipment or loss of its equipment can make a claim against the calling department for reimbursement.

If there is a mutual aid drill, and only in the case of a drill and not an emergency, the “home” district retains all responsibility for loss of equipment or damage of equipment and cannot make any claim against the fire district or municipality in which the drill is held. General Municipal Law §209.2.

.

Edited February 6, 2014 by 38ff

[antiquefirelt 994]

Here is the actual text of the law.

§27:70.3 EQUIPMENT DAMAGE

Equipment damage occurring under the mutual circumstances, however, is different. The calling department assumes responsibility for damage or loss of equipment. A fire district that responds to a mutual alarm call, and sustains damage to its equipment or loss of its equipment can make a claim against the calling department for reimbursement.

If there is a mutual aid drill, and only in the case of a drill and not an emergency, the “home” district retains all responsibility for loss of equipment or damage of equipment and cannot make any claim against the fire district or municipality in which the drill is held. General Municipal Law §209.2.

That's a little differnt than I'd interpreted the previous posts. The "can make a claim" would indicate that it's not compulsory and likely be only for uninsured or underinsured issues or those where damage was a direct result of the incident. Also, is that wholly under the "Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Law" or does it apply to career FD's as well?

[38ff 250]

No, you dont HAVE to make a claim on the other districts insurance. In my mind, a lot of it comes down to the district's commissioners and common sense.

Hypothetically, If my district goes mutual aid to another district, and my axe gets broken, my district is just going to go buy another ax out of it's pocket. It's firefighting, things do get broken in the course of their use, and it was probably time to replace the 20+ year old wooden handled axe with a fiberglass one anyway.. No big deal.

However, if my apparatus is responding to a mutual aid call and gets into an accident thru no fault of it's own, and damage is sustained, well "Mr. you called us mutual aid surrounding district commissioner", you need to call your insurance company, and we need to get this worked out. My taxpayers aren't going to eat the deductible and the associated insurance hike. You called us, and once you placed that call, you assumed responsibility, and you knew that ahead of time. It's spelled out in the law. If you aren't willing to take that chance, that's fine, don't call us.

Now, if there was some gross stupidity on my guy's part while driving to the call, well, that is going to come down to specific circumstances and my board will have to think about it and how we would approach it..

No, the VFBL doesn't apply to career FD's.. But the mutual aid "equipment damage law" applies to EVERYONE, volunteer and career.

Edited February 6, 2014 by 38ff

[Bnechis 3,961]

That's a little differnt than I'd interpreted the previous posts. The "can make a claim" would indicate that it's not compulsory and likely be only for uninsured or underinsured issues or those where damage was a direct result of the incident. Also, is that wholly under the "Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Law" or does it apply to career FD's as well?

While its not compulsory its usually how its handled.

Career is handled in the same manner (employer pays) but different set of laws cover it. 209u & pension system laws.

[Bnechis 3,961]

No, you dont HAVE to make a claim on the other districts insurance. In my mind, a lot of it comes down to the district's commissioners and common sense.

Hypothetically, If my district goes mutual aid to another district, and my axe gets broken, my district is just going to go buy another ax out of it's pocket. It's firefighting, things do get broken in the course of their use, and it was probably time to replace the 20+ year old wooden handled axe with a fiberglass one anyway.. No big deal.

However, if my apparatus is responding to a mutual aid call and gets into an accident thru no fault of it's own, and damage is sustained, well "Mr. you called us mutual aid surrounding district commissioner", you need to call your insurance company, and we need to get this worked out. My taxpayers aren't going to eat the deductible and the associated insurance hike. You called us, and once you placed that call, you assumed responsibility, and you knew that ahead of time. It's spelled out in the law. If you aren't willing to take that chance, that's fine, don't call us.

Now, if there was some gross stupidity on my guy's part while driving to the call, well, that is going to come down to specific circumstances and my board will have to think about it and how we would approach it..

No, the VFBL doesn't apply to career FD's.. But the mutual aid "equipment damage law" applies to EVERYONE, volunteer and career.

I like that approach, I would hope most handle it that way.

[firechief 2]

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.

It's disconcerning to me to read your post referring to any department that has there members respond directly to the fireground. I am the chief in a department that covers 28 square miles of first due district out of one firehouse located in one corner of that response area. It would not be practical from a response time standpoint to have our rigs wait for full crews before they respond. With proper training and management we are able to provide an organized, professional, and effective fire department response. And not only does this include stretching a line, performing searches, and venting the roof (if needed) but also securing a water source and managing any mutual aid resources that were requested. If it hasn't worked for your department I am sorry for that but we have been able to do it in my department for at least the 26 years I have ben a member without it being a "friggin" mess.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

I agree with firechief. I have seen many departments with great response times and no "mess" in getting water, stretching lines, throwing ladders and completing searches, doing it with members responding to the scene. As long as it is done correct (members driving safe in their POV's,keep your POV's off fire block, have full set of dry clean gear to use) it can be a very effective response method for a volunteer dept.

Edited February 8, 2014 by spin_the_wheel