Bnechis

Yorktown firehouse defeated in 'stealth' vote

50 posts in this topic

http://www.lohud.com/story/money/personal-finance/taxes/david-mckay-wilson/2014/07/03/yorktown-fire-station-million-defeat-kitchawan/12195957/

Yorktown wants to build $1.7 million firehouse in southern part of town but voters defeated it for a fourth time.

"In four referenda since 1999, Yorktown voters have rejected a plan to finance construction of a fire station on Route 134 for the Yorktown Heights Fire District. The latest ballot question — dubbed a "stealth vote" by critics — attracted just 1.6 percent of the district's 13,611 voters in a little-publicized election on June 17. It was soundly defeated by more than 2-to-1, with just 69 voters backing it, and 144 opposed. The plan couldn't even get the votes of the estimated 100 volunteers of the Yorktown Heights Engine Company No. 1, which serves the district."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Is it really necessary to build a new Station that won't be manned 24/7/365? Maybe it's time for Yorktown to consider incorporating themselves into the Towns/Villages FD tests and take some of that $$$ to hire a handful of Career Guys if they're so worried about adequate Fire Protection and shorter response times. After all it is 2014, nothing wrong with having a Comb Dept.. Ive always wondered where much of the property tax revenue for some of these smaller Communities who have Volunteer FDs, VACs. Private Refuse Collecting Cos, etc. etc. goes? I believe Yorktown has a very small PD and was once told by a resident there, they only have 4-5 POs a shift, covering roughly 40 sq miles which is incomprehensible so I can't even imagine how a Volunteer FD can handle providing F/P for an area that large with adequate response times. JMO.

fireboyny, bad box, bigrig77 and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The plan couldn't even get the votes of the estimated 100 volunteers of the Yorktown Heights Engine Company No. 1, which serves the district."

That is the most telling part of the entire story.

fireboyny, PC_420, JFLYNN and 10 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The plan couldn't even get the votes of the estimated 100 volunteers of the Yorktown Heights Engine Company No. 1, which serves the district."

That is the most telling part of the entire story.

Could just mean a lot of them aren't voters registered in the fire district.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer, I am just asking, how far from the Millwood sub-station on 134 was this proposed station to be located? Any possibility of putting a Yorktown engine in with the Millwood apparatus and sharing?

And I couldn't help notice that the plans for the new Yorktown station did not include a bunk room. It seems none of the new plans or renovations for the volunteer stations I see include any accommodations for overnight

duty. I believe my old firehouse was renovated for over $1M and no provision for a bunk room, yet this past winter there were more weather related overnight standbys than any time in the past.

NY was lucky this week, Arthur, a category 2, stayed East. But not by much. Whether for future combo or paid or just now for standbys why do we not make allowances for bunk rooms? Some of the new builds have been huge and yet they can't find 150 sf for a room that can fit two bunk beds so four firefighters can be comfortable for an overnight.

SteveC7010 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer, I am just asking, how far from the Millwood sub-station on 134 was this proposed station to be located? Any possibility of putting a Yorktown engine in with the Millwood apparatus and sharing?

And I couldn't help notice that the plans for the new Yorktown station did not include a bunk room. It seems none of the new plans or renovations for the volunteer stations I see include any accommodations for overnight

duty. I believe my old firehouse was renovated for over $1M and no provision for a bunk room, yet this past winter there were more weather related overnight standbys than any time in the past.

NY was lucky this week, Arthur, a category 2, stayed East. But not by much. Whether for future combo or paid or just now for standbys why do we not make allowances for bunk rooms? Some of the new builds have been huge and yet they can't find 150 sf for a room that can fit two bunk beds so four firefighters can be comfortable for an overnight.

My understanding is it is close enough that years ago Yorktown did have an engine stationed there, why that stopped, I do not know.

I believe the original plans were for a much bigger fire house, but each time it got defeated it got scaled down. This is also because the commissioners have been trying to save enough cash to build it without a bond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could just mean a lot of them aren't voters registered in the fire district.....

This has been going on for 15 years, if the members were even remotely interested, there was more than ample time to register.

I think it means the majority are not that interested.

fireboyny likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of commercial property in Yorktown should dictate a paid driver at least. IBM alone should pay for the firehouse.

FirNaTine likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a dual response??? Or will that compromise the relationship and ego's between Millwood and Yorktown when one or the other arrives first due to a job???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The folks south of the reservoir have never been the ones to hold up some form of collaborative agreement.

Why would IBM spend a dime on a fire house when there are two Millwood stations within two miles that bookend their campus.

Why would the taxpayers of this remote section of Yorktown build a firehouse in an area where Millwood has a station less than a mile away with two rigs, nearly 4500 gallons of water and nearly a half mile of LDH. Millwood Station 2 has been open since 1982 logic would dictate that if there are people south of the reservoir living in the YH district that if they were interested in being a volunteer FF that they are already members of Millwood.

No YHFD rigs have ever been stationed at MFC station 2 for anything other than a standby to my knowledge.

Now all this being said, if the taxpayers want a firehouse then they should get their fire house. Putting one in RT 134 won't change a thing for the guys from Millwood. It's not like the guys from Millwood or the guys from Yorktown are going to get any more or less calls as a result of the firehouse being there, and without district lines being changed nothing is going to change other than the stupidity of having to firehouses within a mile of each other.

fireboyny likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been going on for 15 years, if the members were even remotely interested, there was more than ample time to register.

I think it means the majority are not that interested.

What I was getting at is are they even all eligible? What percentage of their members don't live in the fire district and therefore can't vote? Fifteen years or not, if you don't live in the fire district, you can't vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of commercial property in Yorktown should dictate a paid driver at least. IBM alone should pay for the firehouse.

Doesn't IBM already pay its fair share of fire tax?

I suspect its one of the highest taxed properties in the district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of commercial property in Yorktown should dictate a paid driver at least. IBM alone should pay for the firehouse.

All that does is get an otherwise unstaffed rig show up faster and fool the public into thinking they are protected. It is more likely the rig will roll without any additional members, thus delaying the proper response as it forces members to drive their POV's to the scene. This becomes a bigger problem as the district gets larger.

BFD1054 and bigrig77 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a billion(s) dollar company. They aren't paying taxes like Pepsi in Somers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a billion(s) dollar company. They aren't paying taxes like Pepsi in Somers.

I have no idea what IBM pays in taxes at either of their Somers HQ or their Yorktown site (or Pepsi for that mater). But it does not matter what they pay if its more than the assessed value (aka more than their fair share) then they will get an adjustment. So asking them to pay more than their fair share is not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) The folks south of the reservoir have never been the ones to hold up some form of collaborative agreement.

2) Why would IBM spend a dime on a fire house when there are two Millwood stations within two miles that bookend their campus.

3) Why would the taxpayers of this remote section of Yorktown build a firehouse in an area where Millwood has a station less than a mile away with two rigs, nearly 4500 gallons of water and nearly a half mile of LDH. Millwood Station 2 has been open since 1982 logic would dictate that if there are people south of the reservoir living in the YH district that if they were interested in being a volunteer FF that they are already members of Millwood.

4) No YHFD rigs have ever been stationed at MFC station 2 for anything other than a standby to my knowledge.

5) Now all this being said, if the taxpayers want a firehouse then they should get their fire house. Putting one in RT 134 won't change a thing for the guys from Millwood. It's not like the guys from Millwood or the guys from Yorktown are going to get any more or less calls as a result of the firehouse being there, and without district lines being changed nothing is going to change other than the stupidity of having to firehouses within a mile of each other.

1) when you say "hold up" do you mean suggest it or prevent it? I remember letters to the editor after the 1st or 2nd proposal where the group mentioned in this article suggested working more with Millwood.

2) Because they are not in the Millwood Fire District. If they would like to donate $$ to Millwood that's their right, but legally they will always get YHFD unless someone changes the district lines.

3) The residence of that area are the ones who have been fighting against this

4) Back during that 1st or 2nd debate, I remember a Journal News picture and discussion that said their was an arraignment and relations were strained so it was stopped. I have no way to confirm this, but I do remember that was put out their.

5) 4 votes say they do not want it, only the board wants it. In fact during the 3rd vote the fire chief publicly said he would put an engine there if ordered, but with no volunteers in that section of town, all responses would be from the other 2 stations and this one if built would only be used for storage.

Dinosaur likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the specifics of this district, but since it is going to be a volunteer station, with volunteers responding to get the apparatus, does it make operational sense to even build a station? As someone pointed out, residents in that area probably are already members of another department. Given the method that a department like this staffs apparatus, station location might be better off based on where drivers respond from not where the apparatus will be responding to.

Edited by AFS1970
BFD1054 and Bnechis like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been voted down 4 times by the taxpayers of the district. That's telling enough for me.

Barry's correct, they did say this station - despite it's price tag - would be mostly for storage since they have few members in that part of town.

The taxpayers have spoken but I'm willing to bet there will be a 5th referendum or an attempt to bypass that with the use of "surpluses" from prior year's budgets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The borrowing would augment the reserve fund it has built up since the third defeat in 2000. The district added $90,000 more to the reserve fund in 2014, with $1.1 million banked for the station voters don't want built, now estimated to cost $1.7 million. About 31 percent of the district's $1.1 million tax-levy will go to five reserve funds this year.

So almost 1/3 of the department's budget goes to the reserve fund. Is that a normal amount or is that unusually high? If they're budgeting so much that 30% doesn't get used and goes to the reserve fund, shouldn't the taxpayers get a break?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So almost 1/3 of the department's budget goes to the reserve fund. Is that a normal amount or is that unusually high? If they're budgeting so much that 30% doesn't get used and goes to the reserve fund, shouldn't the taxpayers get a break?

The State Comptroller's Office performs audits of all governmental and municipal agencies including fire departments and fire districts. I get their weekly email newsletter and browse the audits. An often repeated criticism of these agencies audits is reserve funds that are way too large compared to the rest of the budget. Those that control these budgets would do well to read over some of these audits and learn from them before their agency comes under the same scrutiny.

And yes, 30% of the annual budget set aside for a reserve fund is way out of line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The State Comptroller's Office performs audits of all governmental and municipal agencies including fire departments and fire districts. I get their weekly email newsletter and browse the audits. An often repeated criticism of these agencies audits is reserve funds that are way too large compared to the rest of the budget. Those that control these budgets would do well to read over some of these audits and learn from them before their agency comes under the same scrutiny.

And yes, 30% of the annual budget set aside for a reserve fund is way out of line.

Yes, but FD's with budgets over 300K are required to have an independent audit. This is the case in Yorktown, there budget is over 1M.

It appears, by looking at their 2013 preliminary budget and the statements in their article, that they have a reserve fund equal to a full year's operating budget. Interesting facts, no judgements, just facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but FD's with budgets over 300K are required to have an independent audit. This is the case in Yorktown, there budget is over 1M.

It appears, by looking at their 2013 preliminary budget and the statements in their article, that they have a reserve fund equal to a full year's operating budget. Interesting facts, no judgements, just facts.

The annual independent audit is very valuable to keep the agency's accounting practices in good order, but the State Comptroller's audits also compare the accounting against state laws regarding municipal finance, governmental practices, and more. FD's such as this one would be subject to both audit requirements.

It's certainly OK to have a reserve fund that exceeds a single year's budget, depending on the purpose of the fund, of course. If they are saving for a new truck or fire house, it would be appropriate.

But setting aside 30% of the total yearly budget into a single reserve fund is almost certainly going to raise a large red flag with the Comptroller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some depts buy the rigs outright instead of financing them. In order to do that theu set up a reserve fund and earn interest on the fund until enough money is saved to buy their new piece of apparatus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some depts buy the rigs outright instead of financing them. In order to do that theu set up a reserve fund and earn interest on the fund until enough money is saved to buy their new piece of apparatus

And that is considered acceptable, but usual practice is to put it in a separate "Apparatus Reserve Fund" and not a general one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people would accept the following

  • The area in question is remote from the major population center of the district and where it appears ALL the staff lives
  • The response time to the area in question is too long from the main fire station even for rural standards

To address this the Fire District has sought to build a station in the area in question. The problem pointed out by many already is Yorktown has either no or an inadequate staff in the area in question to make the station a practical solution.

The practical solution is the area lies in close enough proximity to the Millwood district with an established department and staff out of 2 fire stations. Does this mean the area needs to annexed by Millwood? Not necessarily and probably politically not going to happen. But an easy solution can be automatic aid. It's used throughout the country to ensure the closest resource responds. Now I would argue that Millwood deserves something out of the arrangement. That can be payment (how much would the station cost over a 30 year period? Would a portion of that yearly amount be a fair payment to Millwood for the small increase in responses?) or some sort of reciprocal agreement (Maybe Yorktown auto responds to reported fires in the Millwood district with a tanker, engine, or FAST or on highway boxes). These sort of things benefit the taxpayers of both districts even if the number of responses don't exactly equal each other.

While mfc2257 states that no Yorktown apparatus has been stationed in Millwood I seem to remember reading at one point that Millwood's district offered a bay for an engine. Maybe that's what Bnechis was referring to.

AFS1970, Dinosaur and BFD1054 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some depts buy the rigs outright instead of financing them. In order to do that theu set up a reserve fund and earn interest on the fund until enough money is saved to buy their new piece of apparatus

So is that practice used to circumvent bidding requirements and voter approval? If they have the money they can do what they want? What's the process used to authorize expenditures from a "reserve fund"?

I will say I wish our municipal government had the forethought to maintain reserve accounts, but instead they can't see any further that the next election, so they pass all funding and tax increases off to the next City Council. Of course in our municipal world we'd be required to go to bid and only after approval of the expenditure by the City. Not having a reserve fund ends up with capital purchases coming due during hard times, leading to failed votes to borrow the money, putting of the replacement and "kicking the can down the road".

Bnechis and TFD141@aol.com like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To withdraw monies in a Capital Reserve account, it needs to be put out to a permissive referendum. Basically the district must ask public permission to spend the $ the district already has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is that practice used to circumvent bidding requirements and voter approval? If they have the money they can do what they want? What's the process used to authorize expenditures from a "reserve fund"?

I will say I wish our municipal government had the forethought to maintain reserve accounts, but instead they can't see any further that the next election, so they pass all funding and tax increases off to the next City Council. Of course in our municipal world we'd be required to go to bid and only after approval of the expenditure by the City. Not having a reserve fund ends up with capital purchases coming due during hard times, leading to failed votes to borrow the money, putting of the replacement and "kicking the can down the road".

In no way do reserve funds circumvent bid processes or voter approval. All laws governing municipal purchases still apply. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but it's incorrect.

If the reserve fund is specific, say new truck or building, then the fund can only be spent on the planned purpose. If the expenditure is made and there are funds left in the reserve, the governing body can vote to move the money into another fund, reserve or general.

antiquefirelt likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To withdraw monies in a Capital Reserve account, it needs to be put out to a permissive referendum. Basically the district must ask public permission to spend the $ the district already has.

+1

And it still needs to go to bid.

In our town, any purchase of $3,000 or greater has to go to bid. Purchases between $1,000 and $2,999 require several quotes. Purchases under $1,000 require a quote. Those limits are set by local government vote, and might vary from place to place. The State Comptroller will tell you that your town, village, FD, whatever, has to have rules in place like this.

Even the private non-profit that funds part of our ambulance service has similar rules in the by-laws.

antiquefirelt and GAW6 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All fire districts are REQUIRED to have a purchasing policy in place. The Auditors look for it every year, and to make sure your adhering to it. For example, if it says all purchases between $1000-$5000 must have 3 written quotes, and you buy a widget for $3,500, you better have the 3 written quotes at the ready to prove you adhered to it.

GAW6 and Bnechis like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.