NorthEndExpress

Study: Tax Savings and Economic Value of Volunteer Firefighters in New York

31 posts in this topic

Economic Study

FASNY has released an economic impact study titled Tax Savings and Economic Value of Volunteer Firefighters in New York.

The study, the most in-depth of its kind, concludes that the 100,000 volunteer firefighters across New York save the states taxpayers more than $3 billion annually. These savings are realized because volunteer firefighters are not paid wages and because fundraising by volunteer organizations reduces the need to levy taxes to finance fire equipment and operations.

http://www.fasny.com/economicstudy/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



At risk of unintentionally insulting volunteers, I might ask if the FASNY study took into account how much money would be saved in property/insurance losses if a paid staffed FD was there to effect more positive outcomes sooner? Not a knock on the potential quality of work that a VFD can accomplish, but a realistic view of how much different a fire looks at minute 4 vs. minute 12. Take the same firefighters put them in the station when the call comes in nearly every time, and see how that affects the outcomes.

Edited by antiquefirelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another avenue that would be interesting to explore would be the impact of more regionalized fire services.

My county (in PA) has a lot of small departments covering small districts which results in multiple departments responding to most calls. I looked up some figures a few years ago for comparison and found that PG County Maryland and Fairfax County Virginia both had an average fire station to sq. mileage ratio of around 1 station per 10 square miles. My County was around 1 station per 3 square miles.

Additionally, at the time a nearby group of 3 communities collectively had 7 fire stations and at least 14 large apparatus and 7 support vehicles. My city is slightly larger than that area, but with the same population density. We have 2 stations (down from 4 a couple decades ago), 4 large apparatus and 2 support vehicles. We run around twice as many first due calls as that group and a lot more working fires. Why do they need so much more to do less?

How much money could be saved if we consolidated into fewer stations with less duplication of apparatus? Could that create the call volume and labor pool large enough that each station could be staffed most, if not all of the time? What would be the impact of that on dispatch to on scene response times and incident outcomes compared to what they are now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another avenue that would be interesting to explore would be the impact of more regionalized fire services.

My county (in PA) has a lot of small departments covering small districts which results in multiple departments responding to most calls. I looked up some figures a few years ago for comparison and found that PG County Maryland and Fairfax County Virginia both had an average fire station to sq. mileage ratio of around 1 station per 10 square miles. My County was around 1 station per 3 square miles.

Additionally, at the time a nearby group of 3 communities collectively had 7 fire stations and at least 14 large apparatus and 7 support vehicles. My city is slightly larger than that area, but with the same population density. We have 2 stations (down from 4 a couple decades ago), 4 large apparatus and 2 support vehicles. We run around twice as many first due calls as that group and a lot more working fires. Why do they need so much more to do less?

How much money could be saved if we consolidated into fewer stations with less duplication of apparatus? Could that create the call volume and labor pool large enough that each station could be staffed most, if not all of the time? What would be the impact of that on dispatch to on scene response times and incident outcomes compared to what they are now?

This is the only way to make it work, but as with all change there's always a trade off. Some areas would benefit with paid crews available 24/7 right down the street, other would suffer from the longer wait for anyone to show up at all as stations are consolidated to gain savings. Most county systems work and save money because they are combination in one form or another, but the ones that work best require 24/7 staffing utilizing both career and volunteer personnel to ensure there's always crews on duty in house.

Edited by FFPCogs
vwwh1 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At risk of unintentionally insulting volunteers, I might ask if the FASNY study took into account how much money would be saved in property/insurance losses if a paid staffed FD was there to effect more positive outcomes sooner? Not a knock on the potential quality of work that a VFD can accomplish, but a realistic view of how much different a fire looks at minute 4 vs. minute 12. Take the same firefighters put them in the station when the call comes in nearly every time, and see how that affects the outcomes.

I don't think anyone would doubt that getting out of the station quicker may improve your outcome. Of course there were/are plenty of times that calls have come in and our volunteer station happened to have a complement of personnel and we're on the road within the time it takes to suit up.

I'm just asking, but are there really that many more burned out hulks in the volunteer districts than in the paid districts? Oh, let me answer, NO.

So, as usual, it's about the money. $3 Billion in NYS about $140B nationally. That could be a lot of jobs. Provided the public is willing to pay.

fire2141, BBBMF and AFS1970 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both P.G. County and Fairfax County are combination volunteer/career FDs. I have two friends that are volunteer firefighters in Fairfax County. As I understand it the officer in the firehouse will assign one volunteer firefighter to each manned piece of apparatus. Not to replace firefighters but to supplement them. In one volunteer firehouse assigned, there is one Engine Co., one Truck Co., and two Medic Units. Therefore at any given time, there could be four volunteer firefighters riding from that firehouse.

Of course the volunteer firefighters often have their fund raisers as well and they usually buy needed fire equipment with it. Even pieces of fire apparatus are bought. If it is a piece of fire apparatus they buy, the only thing that the volunteer firefighters ask for in return is that the word "VOLUNTEER" be put on the truck. That is to indicate to the taxpayers of that county that this truck was purchased through fund raisers run by the volunteer firefighters. I think in this particular station, both Medic Units were purchased using these funds.

When the taxpayers see that not only are these firefighters willing to ride and donate their time, but also donate the money raised to buy equipment, it is a win/win for those volunteer firefighters. One of those volunteer firefighters I am talking about is a retired U.S. Army Colonel. Yet he has no problem doing what the boss in the firehouse tells him to do. Just like those career guys.

The system has been in place for a long time and seems to be working well.

On the scene the career officer is the boss as well.

Edited by nfd2004
AFS1970, FD7807 and MiFF like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just asking, but are there really that many more burned out hulks in the volunteer districts than in the paid districts? Oh, let me answer, NO.

Your answer may be correct, but it may not be for the reason you think. In general, "paid districts" tend to be larger and busier than many "volunteer districts" and as such the number of "burned out hulks" could easily be greater due to having more fires overall. Additionally, even in paid districts, some fires are too advanced upon arrival to stop without the building being a total loss. So, looking at the end result and counting burned out buildings isn't a very reliable assessment of performance.

I have however, seen a number of fires in the volunteer districts of my area that should not have been the conflagration that they ended up being. And not just because of how long it took to them to arrive.

AFS1970, dwcfireman and lemonice like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFPA's stats tell us that Career Firefighters (30%) respond to (70%) of the fires. Sure there are exceptions but for the most part this is true. As for this study no one should be surprised who commissioned the study. When people bring up Fairfax, PG, Montgomery Co. there are a lot of differences. Fairfax and Montgomery County although they have volunteers do not rely on them to the level PG does and the career numbers have increased there. In those counties for the most part they are the only department. Would that work in NY? As the law reads we could make super districts to cover large areas and probably provided excellent fire protection but by law cities need to provide their own fire protection.

Bottom of Da Hill and AFS1970 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FireMedic049, on 02 Feb 2016 - 9:37 PM, said:

Your answer may be correct, but it may not be for the reason you think. In general, "paid districts" tend to be larger and busier than many "volunteer districts" and as such the number of "burned out hulks" could easily be greater due to having more fires overall. Additionally, even in paid districts, some fires are too advanced upon arrival to stop without the building being a total loss. So, looking at the end result and counting burned out buildings isn't a very reliable assessment of performance.

I have however, seen a number of fires in the volunteer districts of my area that should not have been the conflagration that they ended up being. And not just because of how long it took to them to arrive.

In most places conditions are so much different.

1) Buildings, exposures, population etc are generally much different.

2) Training requirements are much different. In most places today career firefighters are required to attend a fulltime 16-18 week recruit school before riding on any fire trucks. Usually, during each shift, some form of training or building surveys are done in order to keep their required skills proficient.

3) Career firefighters operate under a semi military environment. There is a chain of command that must be followed. If rules or policy is not followed, some form of discipline can be taken against that individual.

4) To become a career firefighter there is a written and oral testing process, along with a very intense medical and a difficult CPAT agility test to successfully pass. Later comes a character investigation done by most police departments. As we know, the numbers are very high for those that apply, yet few are chosen.

5) Promotions within the career fire service are very difficult as well. Many individuals spent many years studying for the test day. In addition there is usually an oral interview with a score rating. When it is finely over, few are chosen over the number of individuals testing. Sometimes, there is also special school requirements that must be completed within a period of time to maintain that officer level.

The end result is that in most cases, only the very best candidates are chosen. For that, the people who pay for these firefighters expect the very best of service. And rightfully so. Those people have every right to expect their firefighters to help them in their time of need. And for those firefighters to thrown themselves into danger if necessary. That is the trade off. And if you happen to be one of those career firefighters, because of that, you must fully understand, that you are held to a higher standard than most individuals. You drop the ball and every other career firefighter gets dragged through the mud because of your foolish actions. The public trust you to go into their homes and apartments when no one is home. They will even hand you over their sick baby because they trust you. There's no other job like it.

Does the public appreciate what VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS do. Of course they do. Those guys are out there doing a job to help the public in their most desperate moments. No matter what the weather is, they are out there. They give up a nights sleep and still are expected to go to their fulltime jobs to support their families the next morning. Some come from outstanding careers or backgrounds. They have even helped me too.

I was a career firefighter. I was a volunteer firefighter as well. A career for 30 years and volunteer for 5 years prior to that. During my years as a career firefighter, on a few occasions I worked with volunteer firefighters. They depended on me and I depended on them. Yet when it was over, "you stay on your side of the fence, I'll stay on mine". That's pretty sad actually. Just a few hours before, we were cold and wet together. We might have had a few pretty hectic moments together. I'm sure their family members worried about them, just like my family members worried about me. We attended LODD funerals together for volunteer firefighters and career firefighters. The fact is that the smoke and heat was always the same. Career Firefighters and Volunteer Firefighters share a lot in common. They share things that no other groups share.

If you were to visit my home town you would find a Civil War going on. Between career and volunteer firefighters. Should I try to hide it ? No. Although I am not at all proud of what goes on here, "I know we are NOT alone". The reality is this, we should respect each other for what you do. "Instead of Fighting, We should be Uniting". Maybe it's time to think that over a bit. Remember, there are no promises made of going home in this fire service business. Over the years I learned that because I attended so many firefighter LODD funerals.

fire2141, AFS1970, EddieT and 4 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In most places conditions are so much different.

1) Buildings, exposures, population etc are generally much different. Yes, but there are a lot of similarities too, particularly within specific regions.

2) Training requirements are much different. In most places today career firefighters are required to attend a fulltime 16-18 week recruit school before riding on any fire trucks. Usually, during each shift, some form of training or building surveys are done in order to keep their required skills proficient. True.

3) Career firefighters operate under a semi military environment. There is a chain of command that must be followed. If rules or policy is not followed, some form of discipline can be taken against that individual. This is also true of many VFDs.

4) To become a career firefighter there is a written and oral testing process, along with a very intense medical and a difficult CPAT agility test to successfully pass. Later comes a character investigation done by most police departments. As we know, the numbers are very high for those that apply, yet few are chosen. In general, correct.

5) Promotions within the career fire service are very difficult as well. Many individuals spent many years studying for the test day. In addition there is usually an oral interview with a score rating. When it is finely over, few are chosen over the number of individuals testing. Sometimes, there is also special school requirements that must be completed within a period of time to maintain that officer level. In general, correct.

The end result is that in most cases, only the very best candidates are chosen. For that, the people who pay for these firefighters expect the very best of service. And rightfully so. Unfortunately, there are a number of people/advocacy groups/government agencies that are actively trying to dismantle that process.

Those people have every right to expect their firefighters to help them in their time of need. And for those firefighters to thrown themselves into danger if necessary. That is the trade off. And if you happen to be one of those career firefighters, because of that, you must fully understand, that you are held to a higher standard than most individuals. You drop the ball and every other career firefighter gets dragged through the mud because of your foolish actions. The public trust you to go into their homes and apartments when no one is home. They will even hand you over their sick baby because they trust you. There's no other job like it.

Does the public appreciate what VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS do. Of course they do. Those guys are out there doing a job to help the public in their most desperate moments. No matter what the weather is, they are out there. They give up a nights sleep and still are expected to go to their fulltime jobs to support their families the next morning. Some come from outstanding careers or backgrounds. They have even helped me too.

I was a career firefighter. I was a volunteer firefighter as well. A career for 30 years and volunteer for 5 years prior to that. During my years as a career firefighter, on a few occasions I worked with volunteer firefighters. They depended on me and I depended on them. Yet when it was over, "you stay on your side of the fence, I'll stay on mine". That's pretty sad actually. Just a few hours before, we were cold and wet together. We might have had a few pretty hectic moments together. I'm sure their family members worried about them, just like my family members worried about me. We attended LODD funerals together for volunteer firefighters and career firefighters. The fact is that the smoke and heat was always the same. Career Firefighters and Volunteer Firefighters share a lot in common. They share things that no other groups share.

If you were to visit my home town you would find a Civil War going on. Between career and volunteer firefighters. Should I try to hide it ? No. Although I am not at all proud of what goes on here, "I know we are NOT alone". The reality is this, we should respect each other for what you do. "Instead of Fighting, We should be Uniting". Maybe it's time to think that over a bit. Remember, there are no promises made of going home in this fire service business. Over the years I learned that because I attended so many firefighter LODD funerals.

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.

From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.

We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?

IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.

It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.

Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.

Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"FireMedic049", I think we have worked together in the same place. Your story is so similar to mine.

As a Volunteer Firefighter for five years in a combination department, both the career and volunteer members got along great. In fact many of those career guys offered us their help in preparing for some of the upcoming test. Even a few on their off duty time.

Finally in 1975 I get the career firefighters job. But in a different city. It doesn't take me too long to find out that I entered into a War Zone. All because of the fact that I became a career firefighter.

I guess I fall into the category of a "Dinosaur Firefighter". So many things are different now.

I was able to see when females first entered into the fire service. That wasn't something that was welcomed by many members, including myself. Of course today we know that many females are doing a great job. Including some that are now Chiefs within some of our largest American cities.

I was able to see the time when the fire department responded to medical calls. Prior to that, our attitude was "We're Firefighters not Doctors". Today of course we know that the larger percentage of all calls are medical rather than fire related for most places. I have firefighter friends that are alive today because of the work that firefighter/medics did to keep them alive.

I was able to see a time when air packs were NOT a luxury or optional item, but one of mandatory equipment. We know today how important that is. But using an air pack years ago wasn't always available. And if you did get to wear one, they didn't have a warning bell telling you to leave the building. You try to suck in air and there is nothing left. Now you try to find your way out using NO AIR.

My point is that being a dinosaur of the fire service (which I am very proud of), I was able to see many improvements made. There has been many difficult hurdles conquered over the years within the fire service. But for some reason, we still just can't seem to get this career/volunteer thing figured out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats interesting is that in Westchester if you created a county wide department, minus Yonkers and New Rochelle. Closed fire houses because some small towns have 4 houses when they probably need 1 or 2. Or you have 2 towns next to each other and Town A fire house sits right on the town line that borders Town B and is closer to respond to areas in Town B but doesn't and Town B firehouse is half a mile or more away. If you consolidated, closed firehouses, got rid of apparatus. Westchester probably only needs 2 Rescues. 1 in the north and 1 in the south. If Manhattan only has 1 then westchester doesn't need more. Towns in the Sound Shore probably can get away with 6 firehouses. Now think about the savings- less apparatus, less firehouses to keep maintaining, the equipment. Thats a lot of savings. Plus in this study did they count the total amount of volunteers? meaning the non active guys? I have nothing against volunteers none at all. But common sense around Westchester is you could probably save millions by consolidating and have response based not on town lines. Taxes are high enough and i just believe this would bring savings. But it will never happen based on many factors.

nfd2004, BFD1054, M' Ave and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chkpoint, on 05 Feb 2016 - 08:57 AM, said:

Whats interesting is that in Westchester if you created a county wide department, minus Yonkers and New Rochelle. Closed fire houses because some small towns have 4 houses when they probably need 1 or 2. Or you have 2 towns next to each other and Town A fire house sits right on the town line that borders Town B and is closer to respond to areas in Town B but doesn't and Town B firehouse is half a mile or more away. If you consolidated, closed firehouses, got rid of apparatus. Westchester probably only needs 2 Rescues. 1 in the north and 1 in the south. If Manhattan only has 1 then westchester doesn't need more. Towns in the Sound Shore probably can get away with 6 firehouses. Now think about the savings- less apparatus, less firehouses to keep maintaining, the equipment. Thats a lot of savings. Plus in this study did they count the total amount of volunteers? meaning the non active guys? I have nothing against volunteers none at all. But common sense around Westchester is you could probably save millions by consolidating and have response based not on town lines. Taxes are high enough and i just believe this would bring savings. But it will never happen based on many factors.

Once again, I get a similar picture painted. In the city I am referring to, it's total population is about 40,000 people. About 35 square miles with SIX, totally separately, independently run, fire departments. A total of seven firehouses. One career fire department consisting of two firehouses, with five volunteer firehouses within the city.

Apparatus by my count, because there's just so many here I may be off somewhat. But here is my own Unofficial count:

15 Pumpers

3 Ladder Trucks (confirmed)

3 Heavy Rescues (confirmed)

5 Mini Rescues (confirmed)

2 Tankers

2 Brush Units

Plus various other special units such as Hose Tender Unit, Water Rescue Unit, etc.

Find this hard to believe. You're not alone. So come on up and see for yourself. We are located about 120 miles east of NYC, off I-395. Make it a weekend trip and enjoy one of the two nearby Connecticut Casinos while you're here (Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun). Great food, shows and entertainment included.

I am talking of The Rose City, also known as Norwich, Ct. And when you stop by those firehouses, tell them "Willy D sent you". They all know me.

We may not be a Westchester County, NY, but we can all share similar stories. I think you'll find it an interesting place to visit.

velcroMedic1987 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no doubt that in our collective neck of the woods, (i.e. NY, CT) the level of redundancy borders on the absurd and that this is a costly and unnecessary waste. But on the flip side there is also no doubt that volunteers are far less costly than an all paid service, even with all that waste. To that point, I would contend that this would be so even if stations were consolidated and staffed by paid FFs and property/insurance losses were reduced by having that staff able to effect more positive outcomes sooner (although there's no empirical evidence to support that claim to the best of my knowledge). There is also no doubt that a paid service would provide a higher degree of protection in terms of trained personnel and the availability of that personnel, but as I stated earlier that too comes with a trade off, as less stations means longer response times in getting those trained personnel to incidents. Bottom line here is that volunteers will almost always be cheaper (and that's not even counting the transitional costs of shifting from a volunteer to paid service) and since they are, Mr. John Q. Public will happily live with having them as his sole source of fire protection. He doesn't think he'll ever need the fire department in the first place so he see no need to pay more for it then he already does, and besides, that's how it's always been. And if God forbid he does have a fire, well then...when Blubbery Barney and One tooth Willie (as some see volunteers) show up in their big red shiny parade piece firetruck and squirt water in his window, he's ok with that because his friends and neighbors came to his aid in his time of need and he's got home owner's insurance.

Career FFs will never fully replace volunteers, nor could they. The cost is just too prohibitive and thus there is no political will to make it so. Unfortunately for far too long the volunteer fire service in general has lived off that fact and refused to take steps to provide the best possible protection to those we serve. Like most of the rest of America it seems settling for mediocrity instead of striving for excellence is the new normal.

​And one last point that although it's been said before it bears repeating. Many of our predecessors on both sides of the paid / volly divide worked tirelessly to make our service better for us and our communities. When we spend more time infighting or pushing this or that agenda then we do serving, I think we are all doing a great disservice to those who came before us and those who will come after. We are all in this together and we could accomplish so much more, for those we serve and for ourselves, by building each other up than we do by trying to tear each other down..and that is something we should all strive for, because in the end there's nobody looking out for us but us.

Edited by FFPCogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

\Westchester probably only needs 2 Rescues. 1 in the north and 1 in the south. If Manhattan only has 1 then westchester doesn't need more.

I got bored....If you're going off a FDNY designed rescue, you're probably right. But lets look at a few things:

Manhattan is 33.77 sq mi, covered by 1.5 rescues (Rescue 1, and Rescue 3 covers Harlem) Westchester County is 500 sq mi. This means that if Westchester had the same population density as Manhattan, we would need 22 Rescues! I'll also add that NYC in total is 304.6 sq mi covered by 5 rescues (I thought a sixth was added after 9/11, if any body can provide better info on that).

But in terms of population, Westchester would need 1 rescue....And if Manhattan had the population density of Westchester they would require 0.35 of a rescue.

Realistically, Westchester could get away with having 2-4 heavy rescues, with maybe 5 or 6 medium duty rescues to supplement the distances and area coverage.

P.S. I wanted to include the call volume for alarms that required a response by a rescue, but I came up empty. Those numbers would definitely shed light on how equipment is designed and allocated.

AFS1970 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone would doubt that getting out of the station quicker may improve your outcome. Of course there were/are plenty of times that calls have come in and our volunteer station happened to have a complement of personnel and we're on the road within the time it takes to suit up.

I'm just asking, but are there really that many more burned out hulks in the volunteer districts than in the paid districts? Oh, let me answer, NO.

So, as usual, it's about the money. $3 Billion in NYS about $140B nationally. That could be a lot of jobs. Provided the public is willing to pay.

A more timely response with more properly trained personnel is SAFER and will undoubtedly be more effective/efficient.

Are you seriously going to base success on the number of burned out hulks in an urban environment? That's absurd! There are plenty of success stories but I've seen plenty of inground pools where houses once stood but I'm not casting stones like that.

Is it really $3B annually in NYS or is that the worst possible scenario where there is no use of existing assets or combination departments? If there's a savings of $2.5B in insurance costs does that make it more palatable? Is the cost of apples really comparable to bananas?

I agree it is about the money but that's true on both the paid and volunteer side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no question that Volunteers save on payroll costs. The other costs they may or may not save vary greatly by department/district. Do LOSAP's cost what pensions do, too many variables. Does training cost the same, depends on who is getting paid for what. I know of one department that pays volunteers a per Diem wage to attend classes. We know that Volunteers don't save money on turnout gear, although some of that is because of certain standards that do not take usage or overall condition into consideration.

Is there duplication of apparatus due to the district lines, yes there is. However this is usually not because of how many career or volunteer firefighters there are, this is almost always a creature of the management involved. When I was a Volunteer my department had 3 Engines, 1 Truck & 1 Rescue, for just over a mile square district. Our Truck was the busiest piece in the house because we were also the first due truck in two other districts, both of which had trucks, and parts of a third that also had a truck.

However to see why this had happened you need to look at a couple of historical things. City planning wise, when these departments were formed, there were not the roads we have today and mutual aid was not an easy thing to accomplish. Historically many of these small communities were very isolationist. So apparatus was needed because calling the guys next door was not seen as a viable option. By the time I joined, just under half our runs were automatic aid.

Since then one of those districts sold their truck and did not replace it. One of the districts went from 3 engines to 2. So there is some progress being made, but it is by the nature of apparatus and how long they last (at least the older rigs) going to be a slow process.

As for how many rescues are needed, I do not think FDNY is a fair comparison to most communities. Many suburban communities use their rescues for extrication at MVA's. FDNY uses truck companies for that. Then there is NYPD ESU which also does extrication. When I joined my former department we took the rescue on EMS calls, we went on all medicals in the district. As a result the Rescue was busier than the engines. That changed when a powerful lobby got the engine to go on medicals and suggested getting rid of our rescue. The Chief could not be swayed by the actual data / statistics. Although the rescue was saved, it stopped going on EMS calls. After the advent of a first responder policy (precursor to EMD) the engine's medicals went way down. However is you compared the number of rescues in Westchester to the number of rescues, ladders & ESU trucks in NYC, what would you get? I am guessing a little closer to apparatus parity. That of course is where call volume comes into play.

Edited by AFS1970
FFPCogs and dwcfireman like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got bored....If you're going off a FDNY designed rescue, you're probably right. But lets look at a few things:

Manhattan is 33.77 sq mi, covered by 1.5 rescues (Rescue 1, and Rescue 3 covers Harlem) Westchester County is 500 sq mi. This means that if Westchester had the same population density as Manhattan, we would need 22 Rescues! I'll also add that NYC in total is 304.6 sq mi covered by 5 rescues (I thought a sixth was added after 9/11, if any body can provide better info on that).

As I understand it, they still only have 5 full-time, front line rescue companies. Rescue 6 is staffed as needed, like special events and severe weather situations where they anticipate the need for it.

dwcfireman and AFS1970 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting point to consider.

The city I had mentioned in reply # 16, the one with 15 pumpers, 3 ladders, 3 heavy rescues, and a population of 40,000 people, just put in an order for $800,000 for new air packs. Almost One Million Dollars just for air packs !!!!

I don't know what the average price tag is for a new air pack these days. But as a taxpayer, that sure sounds like a lot of money for air packs in a city of 40,000 people.

What about buying bunker gear ? How many sets of bunker gear are required here ? What about minimum training and medical exams required ? That adds up too.

Are 15 Pumpers really needed in a city of 40,000 people ? Why is it that other cities with 3 to 4 times the population have less. Bridgeport, Ct, the largest city in that state, has only 9 pumpers serving 100,000 more people (145,000 pop total). What is the average yearly cost for one pumper or one ladder truck over a 15 or 20 year period ? A one million dollar fire truck I think comes out to be about $50,000 a year, per truck.

So as we look at the larger picture, we may begin to see a much different cost involved. Can we make a similar comparison to a place like Westchester ?

Is there a better way to do it if saving taxpayers money is the big concern ? Can the younger, future leaders of our fire service make those right choices ? What about today's fire service leaders ? Can they make those tough choices just as those that introduced the first female firefighters into the all male dominated fire service ? Or the leaders that stood strong saying; "If we can send a fire truck to a trash can fire, we certainly should send a fire truck to a medical emergency".

Those are just a few of the examples of "The Dinosaur Era", where strong leadership in the fire service led the way.

Edited by nfd2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting point to consider.

The city I had mentioned in reply # 16, the one with 15 pumpers, 3 ladders, 3 heavy rescues, and a population of 40,000 people, just put in an order for $800,000 for new air packs. Almost One Million Dollars just for air packs !!!!

I don't know what the average price tag is for a new air pack these days. But as a taxpayer, that sure sounds like a lot of money for air packs in a city of 40,000 people.

What about buying bunker gear ? How many sets of bunker gear are required here ? What about minimum training and medical exams required ? That adds up too.

Are 15 Pumpers really needed in a city of 40,000 people ? Why is it that other cities with 3 to 4 times the population have less. Bridgeport, Ct, the largest city in that state, has only 9 pumpers serving 100,000 more people (145,000 pop total). What is the average yearly cost for one pumper or one ladder truck over a 15 or 20 year period ? A one million dollar fire truck I think comes out to be about $50,000 a year, per truck.

So as we look at the larger picture, we may begin to see a much different cost involved. Can we make a similar comparison to a place like Westchester ?

Is there a better way to do it if saving taxpayers money is the big concern ? Can the younger, future leaders of our fire service make those right choices ? What about today's fire service leaders ? Can they make those tough choices just as those that introduced the first female firefighters into the all male dominated fire service ? Or the leaders that stood strong saying; "If we can send a fire truck to a trash can fire, we certainly should send a fire truck to a medical emergency".

Those are just a few of the examples of "The Dinosaur Era", where strong leadership in the fire service led the way.

We could absolutely compare this to Westchester. The costs of emergency services are staggering and we don't have any idea the true cost because there is no transparency.

As for the 800K for "air packs", that raises a red flag to me. Rounding very high, not considering any discounts or economies of scale for a large order, I come up with about 675K for 100 new packs and 250 new masks. Maybe they are all personally engraved and have gold regulators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go with the roughly $6,000 HIGHEST PRICED cost of air packs, that gives this city (Norwich, CT pop about 40,000 people), enough money to buy about 133 air packs. That $800,000 was the total price listed on the front page article of a local newspaper.

A total of 133 air packs for who ????

I asked that question, and I will do my best to try and answer that.

When you have a total of six entirely separate fire departments, with each one wanting to do their own thing in a place about 35-40 square miles, that's what happens. With a total of 20-25 separate pieces of front line apparatus, this is about the number of air packs that might be needed. Of course we also must consider the huge cost of gear involved.

Yet the local citizens think they are getting a bargain service because some places within those city limits, are not paying for firefighter salaries. (Although there is a small pension given to volunteer firefighters after 20 years of service - with no idea on cost control regarding how many will collect this)

When we start to look at the entire picture, we find the cost for this type of service is really quite high when everything is included.

1) There are seven separate firehouse buildings to maintain year round and heat in the winter. Is it possible that can be reduced ?

2) There is the high cost of an overabundance of fire apparatus to pay for and maintain. In some cases, up to $50,000 a year for each piece through a purchase.

3) We have the cost of supplying a full set of bunker gear to each firefighter. Roughly, how many career and volunteer firefighters should a small city of about 40,000 people be expected to pay for.

4) We talked about the purchase of roughly 133 new air packs at roughly $6,000 each. Or would it be about $3,000 each for the purchase of about 266 cheaper priced air packs.

Should a city like this continue to operate in this fashion ? Are there advantages to operating a city this size with all these individual departments functioning as they are ? I ask this, "if so, what are those advantages" ?

Or should a place like this (as well as a place like Westchester) continue to operate as is.

Who are we in this for ? Our own selves to keep "us" happy or the people who depend on us every hour of every day. Is it really necessary for a place like Norwich, Ct to buy 133, or more air packs ?

The real story will eventually get out. When people start to see huge figures like this, they will start to wonder why. When they start to compare places like Bridgeport, Ct to Norwich, Ct as far as fire apparatus, it is only a matter of time when spending huge sums of money on fire apparatus will end. Will the City of Norwich double it's career fire department numbers ? Of course not. So can the public still be served using both career and volunteer firefighters without spending all this money ? Personally I think it can be done. And it is already being done in hundreds of places around this country.

When such stories are told of our operation, some places are laughing at us. If you are currently a leader in the fire service, it is your responsibility to do what is best for all. If you are in such a position, and you honestly tell yourself it just can't be done, then it's time for you to step down. Because I assure you, "It can be done".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the point of buying SCBA, are you looking at just SCBA or changing manufacturers and/or cylinder pressures, thereby requiring changing every SCBA plus all the spare bottles? Then if bumping to 4500 psi from 2216 could add additional expenses for cascade bottle upgrades, compressor replacement or air pressure boosters? IT doesn't take long for a wholesale change project to add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets more costly as I look into that newspaper article posted in reply # 27.

This $800,000 includes the cost of the 99 air packs, plus extra equipment such as face pieces, hand held receivers and amplifiers. What I did NOT realize is that this cost is NOT even for the entire city. Apparently money was already spent to purchase air packs for two other fire departments within this city limits. One being the career fire department and the other being one of the other volunteer departments. So that cost was in ADDITION to the recent $800,000 cost.

As the title says here, "Replying to Study: Tax Savings and Economic Value of Volunteer Firefighters in New York". Well, maybe so but it sure ain't true for this Connecticut place. Not by my figures at least.

Could a system be put into place here, or Westchester, or any other place like it to improve both the services and savings to the taxpayers in these areas. I certainly seem to think so.

So - "What are we waiting for" ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its fair to compare

Both P.G. County and Fairfax County are combination volunteer/career FDs. I have two friends that are volunteer firefighters in Fairfax County. As I understand it the officer in the firehouse will assign one volunteer firefighter to each manned piece of apparatus. Not to replace firefighters but to supplement them. In one volunteer firehouse assigned, there is one Engine Co., one Truck Co., and two Medic Units. Therefore at any given time, there could be four volunteer firefighters riding from that firehouse.

Of course the volunteer firefighters often have their fund raisers as well and they usually buy needed fire equipment with it. Even pieces of fire apparatus are bought. If it is a piece of fire apparatus they buy, the only thing that the volunteer firefighters ask for in return is that the word "VOLUNTEER" be put on the truck. That is to indicate to the taxpayers of that county that this truck was purchased through fund raisers run by the volunteer firefighters. I think in this particular station, both Medic Units were purchased using these funds.

When the taxpayers see that not only are these firefighters willing to ride and donate their time, but also donate the money raised to buy equipment, it is a win/win for those volunteer firefighters. One of those volunteer firefighters I am talking about is a retired U.S. Army Colonel. Yet he has no problem doing what the boss in the firehouse tells him to do. Just like those career guys.

The system has been in place for a long time and seems to be working well.

On the scene the career officer is the boss as well.

Willy! Good to hear from you again Brother! Hope you're doing well.

Unfortunately I'm going to have to disagree with you though, as both a volunteer in PG and a resident of Fairfax County. Comparing PG's volunteer program to Fairfax County's is like comparing apples to aircraft carriers...

PG's volunteer program is HUGE because of the financial problems of the county. Simply put, if all of the volunteers left tomorrow, PGFD would not be able to provide adequate services to the citizens. There are several 24/7 career stations in the county, but most of them have some combination of career and volunteer personnel. I think there are 5-6 stations that are 100% volunteer; however, only 2 are 100% volunteer and staffed 24/7 (Bladensburg Co. 9 and Morningside Co. 27). Several more have career staffing during the day and volunteer staffing at night, or some combination thereof. There's a reason I drive 30-45 minutes to PG to ride firetrucks as opposed to joining Annandale "Volunteer" FD in Fairfax County which is 5 minutes from my house.

Most of PG county consists of low income communities. Some of the largest facilities in the county are non-taxable (University of Maryland, NASA-Goddard, Fort Meade/NSA, Andrews Air Force Base, etc.) Thus, the county does not have the tax base to provide career staffing for every station 24/7. They can barely afford the staffing they have now, they keep canceling career classes. So the volunteer companies work very hard to recruit/retain members. Which is made easier by the fact that we run a LOT of fire, simply because it is a low income community. Guys from all over the country come to PG to volunteer. In my station alone there are probably 4 or 5 guys from Dutchess, Orange, and Ulster Counties who drive down AT LEAST once a month to ride with us.

If every Fairfax County volunteer stopped riding the rigs, I would argue that there would be no noticeable difference in service. Every station is staffed 24/7 by career staff, the volunteers barely supplement manpower at all. Now, if they stopped fundraising and paying for stations/apparatus/equipment, that would definitely be noticed. But that's the deal that works for them.

Economically, I think most of Westchester is going to be closer to Fairfax County, maybe with the exception of some of the bigger cities. But until NY allows county fire departments, its purely academic.

Edited by SageVigiles

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.