Tired of the Fire Service Debate?

[x635 4,066]

Excellent article!

In the fire service today, it is alive and vibrant with positive change and learning. As a lifelong student of the fire service I limit my remarks on the many debates and only serve as an arbiter. I myself have become weary of those who wish to build up their agenda by demeaning and condemning others. Consider these points for a moment:

Full article: http://bringingbackbrotherhood.org/tired-of-the-fire-service-debate/#sthash.WkJMixG5.dpuf

[robert benz 344]

ok, Maybe in the writers area or mind the fire service is alive and vibrant. From what I see, the fire service is in deep trouble. Volunteer membership is declining, career depts. are being cut to the bone, or are stagnant.

I believe todays firefighters are much better trained, and are more dedicated than previous generations. But there are not enough of them to fill the voids, at least in our area. Due to the increase in call volume, training, state and federal mandates, the fire service is finding itself hard pressed to keep up with todays conditions. We have too many Commissioners, Chiefs, and elected individuals, who are more worried about money and votes than fixing a broken system. A house fire today requires mutual aid. when there was more members in the dept. there was pride in taking care of your own business.

State and federal mandates, Bailout systems, 2 in 2 out, fast, NFPA, have been enacted to create a safer fire ground, But no more ff's to do the job. The patch on your uniform says XYZ fire dept, yet the truth is XYZ plus 5 surrounding depts. is what is needed for your average house fire. The writer doesn't like the bashing, but what is actually being bashed? the truth? The public is fed up with high taxes. Police depts. are consolidating, At some point, somehow the laws will have to change to allow fire depts. to do the same. Then and only then, at least in this area, will fd's be as alive and vibrant as the writer states.

This is just my opinion, let the bashing begin lol.

[AFS1970 504]

We all have our agendas, but not all agendas are bad. It is just that we often find ourselves in competition because our agendas may not mesh together seamlessly. Consider these:

Department A runs apparatus with 2 career firefighters each. In order to meet 2 in 2 our rule this requires multiple rigs. Now this says nothing of NFPA 1710 or 1720 requirements.

Department B a single engine on automatic alarms, some big buildings get an engine and a truck.

Department C has a single 4 man Engine that goes on all calls, but gets automatic Aid on all box alarms of at least a 3 man Engine and a 2 or 3 man Truck from different neighboring departments.

Department D send at least 4 rigs with 4 man crews on Automatic Alarms, sometimes more are sent.

Now all of those departments are either career or combination departments. Do you think they all have the same agendas? I would bet they do not. For the smaller staffing levels, I think increasing manpower is probably the #1 priority. I would also bet that the better staffed do not want the penny pinchers to know that other departments in the region do the same with less. I could list a similar scenario with dueling volunteer agendas but I think you get the point.

I think that article is good, as it tries to get us to focus on the larger picture. However there is a saying that all politics is local, and I think that applies to the fire service as well. We spend a great deal of our time looking inward trying to limit ourselves to our own little area and never look at what goes on even one town away, let alone one state away.

[x635 4,066]

Some of my favorite quotes from the article that apply here on this forum:

Perhaps if we came to the table with a less defensive posture and took the time to read the other side of the story ratherthan quoting the parts that inflame and enrage others we would be already moving forward

In closing, let us be positive agents for change, build others up, and not assassinate one another in the process. We do everything together in the fire service; let us not forget that.

[FD7807 59]

Wasn't it shown that PD consolidation did not save money ? (Ossining vs. WCPD ?)

[FD7807 59]

If anything duplication of services drives taxes up. Ex. Municipalities having seperate PD & FD Hazmat &Tech rescue teams

Edited February 5, 2015 by FD7807

[Dinosaur 844]

Wasn't it shown that PD consolidation did not save money ? (Ossining vs. WCPD ?)

That wasn't really a consolidation. It was a contract for services.

I'd like to see a couple of true consolidations to figure out if it works or not.

[M' Ave 1,466]

That wasn't really a consolidation. It was a contract for services.

I'd like to see a couple of true consolidations to figure out if it works or not.

I'm a huge fan of consolidation of certain services. There are simply too many little kingdoms around here. I'd venture to say that a consolidation that didn't save money, isn't really a consolidation.

You can cut administrative staff, for one. There should be fewer chiefs and some redundant bureaus, such as a detective units, IAB, ect would be trimmed from 2 - 1.

Yup, it means admin staff losing their jobs, hopefully only due to attrition. The only way to save money (real money) is to employ fewer people.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I'm a huge fan of consolidation of certain services. There are simply too many little kingdoms around here. I'd venture to say that a consolidation that didn't save money, isn't really a consolidation.

You can cut administrative staff, for one. There should be fewer chiefs and some redundant bureaus, such as a detective units, IAB, ect would be trimmed from 2 - 1.

Yup, it means admin staff losing their jobs, hopefully only due to attrition. The only way to save money (real money) is to employ fewer people.

Having spent a lot of time working on consolidation financials I can say that your statements only work if each department is overstaffed (particularly in admin). While their may need to be fewer chiefs of departments, many small depts. do not have anyone performing many critical administrative functions (training, safety, codes, etc.)

Sometimes a consolidations is about trying to provide the proper service levels. When we did the southern Westchester study we had one mandate, to meet NFPA 1710. We had 9 departments in the study and none were meeting 1710.That meant every rig needed 3/1 and that 90% of the calls would have an engine in 4 min and every box would have 22 firefighters in 8 min.

After figuring out the time parameters and vehicles/stations needed we calculated the number of employees that would be needed. What we found was that the total # of employees the 9 departments was only about 10 short of the 600+ needed. While we did not get into a major financial analysis, that fact alone told us that the costs of consolidation was neutral, but the service level meant that every fire alarm increased of 6 to 19 additional firefighter.

[SECTMB 612]

After figuring out the time parameters and vehicles/stations needed we calculated the number of employees that would be needed. What we found was that the total # of employees the 9 departments was only about 10 short of the 600+ needed. While we did not get into a major financial analysis, that fact alone told us that the costs of consolidation was neutral, but the service level meant that every fire alarm increased of 6 to 19 additional firefighter.

Many hands make light work. Who wouldn't mind an additional 6 or more firefighters on an alarm?

Just asking...... when they do these studies, is there a way to measure productivity gains achieved by a common command and sop's because you are one department operating in concert at a multiple alarm fire as opposed to several departments operating together under mutual aid? Also would not the costs associated with injury lost time and overtime be less if the single consolidated department was properly staffed, spreading the work load? Can a value also be placed on the intangible costs associated with less burn out and better attitudes?

[Bnechis 3,961]

1) Many hands make light work. Who wouldn't mind an additional 6 or more firefighters on an alarm?

2) Just asking...... when they do these studies, is there a way to measure productivity gains achieved by a common command and sop's because you are one department operating in concert at a multiple alarm fire as opposed to several departments operating together under mutual aid?

3) Also would not the costs associated with injury lost time and overtime be less if the single consolidated department was properly staffed, spreading the work load?

4) Can a value also be placed on the intangible costs associated with less burn out and better attitudes?

1) You would be surprised how many don't want the help.

2) Never looked at measuring this, but its commonly held belief that it has to improve.

3) It most definitely would, however while those savings can be substantial, in the overall budget its a small %.

4) I am sure their can be, but again in the grand scheme, its a very very small percentage

[velcroMedic1987 330]

I'm a huge fan of consolidation of certain services. There are simply too many little kingdoms around here. I'd venture to say that a consolidation that didn't save money, isn't really a consolidation.

You can cut administrative staff, for one. There should be fewer chiefs and some redundant bureaus, such as a detective units, IAB, ect would be trimmed from 2 - 1.

Yup, it means admin staff losing their jobs, hopefully only due to attrition. The only way to save money (real money) is to employ fewer people.

Or admin staff going to back to line positions and increasing the level of service provided.

Same number of people, more in the firehouse or on the street!

[antiquefirelt 994]

It seems every time there's talk about consolidation or regionalization it comes down to loss of control. Everyone wants more personnel to respond, few are willing to give up their control over their resources. If you're the Chief, why would you want to go back to having a boss and not having the final say? Only if you admit that's the best thing for your department and community and are willing to put those things first! Sadly, that's rare.

[M' Ave 1,466]

Having spent a lot of time working on consolidation financials I can say that your statements only work if each department is overstaffed (particularly in admin). While their may need to be fewer chiefs of departments, many small depts. do not have anyone performing many critical administrative functions (training, safety, codes, etc.)

Sometimes a consolidations is about trying to provide the proper service levels. When we did the southern Westchester study we had one mandate, to meet NFPA 1710. We had 9 departments in the study and none were meeting 1710.That meant every rig needed 3/1 and that 90% of the calls would have an engine in 4 min and every box would have 22 firefighters in 8 min.

After figuring out the time parameters and vehicles/stations needed we calculated the number of employees that would be needed. What we found was that the total # of employees the 9 departments was only about 10 short of the 600+ needed. While we did not get into a major financial analysis, that fact alone told us that the costs of consolidation was neutral, but the service level meant that every fire alarm increased of 6 to 19 additional firefighter.

Yeah Barry, I read your whole report. It wouldn't only be a cost savings, but clearly an improved Fire service. I won't name specific dept's, but there are some within that study that can barely provide the minimum, if even that. (That's not a knock on the guys, its a knock on staffing and/or volunteer participation)

I have to imagine that there would be some cost savings realized in a reduction in apparatus and equipment. (While we're short staff around Westchester, we're certainly not short of firehouses filled with shiny trucks) I would hope that apparatus repair costs could be reduced by uniform fleet orders as well. I mean, lately in NYC, we've gotten a lot of apparatus from different builders, but they've all the got the same motor, transmission, brake systems, ect. ect.....and this means they stock one type of part....with little variation.

On a separate note, my desire to see some consolidation isn't limited to the fire service. There are a lot of other agencies that could use a little combining.

[AFS1970 504]

Although I don't know the internal details, I can think of two Police consolidations that have happened in our region. The most prominent would be when NYPD, NYC Housing Police and NYC Transit Police all merged. However one that included more departments would be the MTA PD merger that consolidated Metro-North PD, LIRR PD, and several smaller departments like Staten Island Rapid Transit PD.

[Dinosaur 844]

Although I don't know the internal details, I can think of two Police consolidations that have happened in our region. The most prominent would be when NYPD, NYC Housing Police and NYC Transit Police all merged. However one that included more departments would be the MTA PD merger that consolidated Metro-North PD, LIRR PD, and several smaller departments like Staten Island Rapid Transit PD.

The NYC mergers were hardly that. They all fell under the City of New York unlike trying to consolidate the Yonkers, Mount Vernon and New Rochelle Police or Fire Departments.

The MTA merger may be a better example. Has anyone got an example of FIRE departments merging?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Yeah Barry, I read your whole report. It wouldn't only be a cost savings, but clearly an improved Fire service. I won't name specific dept's, but there are some within that study that can barely provide the minimum, if even that. (That's not a knock on the guys, its a knock on staffing and/or volunteer participation)

I have to imagine that there would be some cost savings realized in a reduction in apparatus and equipment. (While we're short staff around Westchester, we're certainly not short of firehouses filled with shiny trucks) I would hope that apparatus repair costs could be reduced by uniform fleet orders as well. I mean, lately in NYC, we've gotten a lot of apparatus from different builders, but they've all the got the same motor, transmission, brake systems, ect. ect.....and this means they stock one type of part....with little variation.

On a separate note, my desire to see some consolidation isn't limited to the fire service. There are a lot of other agencies that could use a little combining.

Thank you. The cost savings in the 1st few years would be minimal, if any. Their would need to be a lot of additional equipment, radios etc. to standardize. You are correct, a number of departments are not legally able to enter burning buildings do to lack of staffing.

While, in the long term there was fleet savings, again it was in the less than 1% range, in part because many of the apparatus were at the end of their service life, also we identified more than 1/2 the houses needed massive rebuild or replacement.

The goal was to see if we could get up to the standards for response/staffing and we were pleasantly surprised to see that the costs to do it were approximately the same as what we were collectively paying now.

I agree, their are many other areas for consolidation. unfortunately while Albany claims they want consolidation and the tax cap is designed to force it, they still will not acknowledge that under current state laws City's can not merge with towns or villages (including just services like fire).

[AFS1970 504]

The MTA merger may be a better example. Has anyone got an example of FIRE departments merging?

The only one in our area that I can think of is North Hudson Regional Fire Department in NJ, I think that was a merger of 5 departments, all career. I remember reading some news about it when it happened, but again I don't know the internal details. It does seem to be working though.

I know they closed at least one station due to two towns having stations a few blocks from each other. I think however the staffing was only reduced by attrition to accomplish that. So while there was an overall reduction, nobody lost their jobs that I know of.