Economic Study: Volunteer Firefighters Save NY Taxpayers More than $3 Billion Each Year

[EMSLt 27]

Quote

New York’s Volunteer Firefighters not only save lives, they also save billions in tax dollars for the state. In fact, New Yorkers save more than $3 billion each year due to the services provided by ...

 

http://www.longisland.com/news/02-02-16/fasny-economic-study-volunteer-firefighters-save-ny-taxpayers-money.html

[Bnechis 3,961]

Too bad it was economically flaud study.

 

my favorite part is the claim that volunteers have increased statewide by 30,000 - 40,000. 

[bad box 371]

FASNY paid an economic research and statistical analysis company to write a glowing report about the excellent services being provided by volunteer fire departments. It's questionable as to how they came up with the figures presented that represent the cost of replacing volunteer departments with career departments. The response time information for volunteer departments isn't specific (Are they referring to the time the 911 operator received the call until first unit *not a chief's car* arrives on the scene, or the time the first unit signs on the air responding until they arrive at the scene? Are they referring to response time for all calls, just fire calls, just non fire emergencies, just EMS?). The bottom line is people rely upon fire, rescue and EMS services to respond quickly, be properly staffed, trained and equipped. Seconds count, and it's far more likely for a 24 / 7 career department to be able to provide an appropriate response in an acceptable time frame than it is for  a department that relies upon volunteers who in most cases must respond from their home or their place of work, to the firehouse before they can gear up and respond with the necessary apparatus. I volunteered for 17 years and am very aware of how understaffed departments are during normal work hours from Monday to Friday and how difficult it is to get a sufficient number of personnel to get out of their beds in the middle of the night for a call when they must be up for work or school in a couple of hours. I worked alongside many dedicated, well trained volunteers during those years, but regardless of how dedicated they are, work, school and family have to come before being available to get trained (initially), maintain annual training requirements (courses and drills) as well as respond to calls. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by bad box

[AFS1970 504]

This is no different than when the Council of Mayors paid Tri-Data to say there was no increased cancer risk to Firefighters. In my city Tri-Data was considered to be the most amazing and knowledgeable and super fantastic fire experts that ever walked the earth. Then it came out that they simply do what they are paid to do. I never trust any study like this because I don't trust the research.  

[4truck48 25]

Wow! Just think how much money could be saved if EVERYONE did their job for FREE.

 

[bad box 371]

7 hours ago, 4truck48 said:

Wow! Just think how much money could be saved if EVERYONE did their job for FREE.

 

I agree, especially folks who work at economic research and statistical analysis companies, CEO's, elected officials, professional athletes and celebrities! 

[nfd2004 750]

Did this study ALSO look at the direct cost of "property damage and insurance claims" ? If not, somebody pays for that as the result of not having on duty career firefighters. Actually, my guess is that WE ALL pay for that through our homeowners insurance premiums.

 

Did this study look into the ISO (Insurance Services Office) ratings and insurance cost ? There could be a significant difference in what is paid by home owners, particularly businesses. A business served by a Class 1 fire department will be able to save a significant amount on their fire insurance payments versus a place with perhaps a Class 4 or higher number rating (Class 1 the BEST, Class 10 the WORST). Of course one of the main concerns is water supply. A city with good water mains generally does very well.

 

 Just as a comparison, in Connecticut there are THREE Class 1 Fire Departments, Hartford, New Haven and Milford, Ct. All have a good water supply and that gets high marks. However, all are also served by fully career fire departments.

 

   In the earlier thread of "A Fractured Fire Service Norwich, Ct", that city generally has a good water supply, except for one small area. That city is given a Class 4 rating. Part of the city served by a career fire department and the other part of the city served by five separate volunteer departments.

 

  The difference between Milford, Ct and Norwich, Ct is about 10,000 people more in Milford. However, for the same business to operate, the price for insurance coverage would be quite a difference. Maybe an interesting point to consider when paying your tax bill, how much actually goes to the fire dept, and paying your homeowners insurance bill.

[FireMedic049 597]

A similar study was done in PA several years ago with a similarly "large savings" attributed to the volunteers.  Unfortunately, the study had some significant flaws, but it is still mentioned from time to time.

 

As I recall, some of those were.......

 

A large part of the "savings" was in salary costs, but the way they determined and sold it was flawed.  It was described as the cost to replace all of the volunteers with career personnel, but it didn't fully take into account some important factors.  They essentially took the number of people on the rosters of the volunteer departments and multiplied it by a per-capita cost.  So, to replace X number of volunteers with X number of career firefighters would cost Y.

 

Anyone who knows much about the volunteer fire service in PA should be able to see the problem with that.  For those unfamiliar, many VFD/VFCs over report their membership numbers.  Rosters can include life members (retired volunteers), social members, associcate members and so on and not accurately reflect the true number of active members who are trained and routinely responding to calls.  I've seen ones where they have 100 on the roster, but only 20-25% actually respond to calls to some extent.

 

Additionally, we have a number of areas which have way more individual fire stations/VFCs than are necessary.  For example, my department covers a small city of just over 5 sq mi with 2 stations (down from 4 in its prime) operating 4 large apparatus and 3 support type vehicles.  A nearby group of 3 communities that comprise a school district collectively comes in at just under 5 sq mi.  Until a year or so ago, they operated from 7 stations (6 now) with at least 14 large apparatus and 7 support vehicles.  Collectively, they run less total incidents per year than we do, a percentage of which are automatic mutual aid responses outside their area.  We do very little mutual aid (not by our choice).  We run far more working fires in our city than they do in their collective 1st due.
 

The study didn't really look at "right sizing" the delivery of fire services.  County wide, we average 1 fire station for every 3+ sq miles.  For comparison, PG MD and Fairfax VA average 10+ sq miles for every fire station.  The study didn't really take into account the fact that a more regionalized approach to delivery would reduce the total number of stations & apparatus needed and also result in not needing to replace volunteers on a one for one basis.

 

It didn't really account for other economic factors like you mentioned, insurance ratings and property loss and how they are impacted by volunteer and career delivery models.

 

So while there clearly are savings realized with the volunteers, they aren't necessarily as large as claimed by the study for the above reasons and others.

[FFPCogs 863]

As Alan said studies like these are always going to show the results in the client's favor...those results are bought and paid for by the client so it can be no other way. With that said almost universally volunteers are going to cost less...and that is just a simple mathematical fact. Don't think so, then riddle me this:, Where does the vast majority of the money go in a career FD's budget? Salaries and benefits of the employees, aka career firefighters...that's where. No salaries= a significant reduction in cost. So let's not try to pretend that an all paid service is going to be cheaper...it won't case closed. On the flip side of that coin though is the quality of service provided for the money spent and in this the level of service provided by a paid department is almost universally going to be better than that provided by volunteers, for all of the reason so often cited here...case closed there too. So where does that leave us? After spending tens of thousands of dollars to get the study results you want and then touting those results as fact what has been accomplished? Not much really...wanna know why? Because for all the dollars thrown at the issue of which type of fire protection is better, in the end we don't decide the matter, the citizens do. And that my friends is just as it should be, after all it's their tax dollars and their lives is it not? And since it is, the type of fire protection they get is THEIR choice to make not ours. Point being don't waste your money on studies everybody knows are skewed anyway, they don't rally matter to Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public. Fact is that money could be far better spent dealing with the real issue...

 

And what is that real issue? That's a gimme boys, ...the real issue is the adversarial relationship that has grown ever more ingrained and vicious between paid and volunteer firefighters in recent times. Well guess what fellas, paid or volunteer, we all do the same job...protect lives and property. Do some do it "better"? sure they do. Do some do it "cheaper"? you bet, but the fact is, we all do it...period  Now you can thump your chest and stomp your feet...why you can even take that study you paid for in hand and go yell your point from the rooftops. Sure get out there and let everyone know how much better trained you are, or how much cheaper you are or any one of a hundred other BS arguments, but in the end, for all of our bombast, that's all it is, bullsh!t...no matter how many studies you pay for to "prove" otherwise. Here's the deal, our self imposed divisions serve no one and have done nothing to better OUR fire service and each and every one of us should be ashamed that we've let it degenerate this far. Worst of all though is that the biggest losers from all of our bullsh!t are those we are all supposed to be here to protect and serve, our citizens ...anybody remember them in all this?

 

The best thing we as a service could do is to start trying to find ways to work together for the greater good of everyone...firefighters and our citizens alike. Now sure there are many things which divide us, some valid some not, some real some imagined, but there is one thing which unites us all as firefighters and that is our common mission...protecting those in need. High time that came first. High time THEY came first.

 

I will leave you with this: Many moons ago when I joined my first VFD, standing on the firehouse apron one evening, I was told by a old weathered veteran member, "Remember kid you're not here for you....you're here for them" as he pointed out to the neighborhood around us. In my 36+ years I've never forgotten that piece of advice. So tomorrow morning, as you look in that mirror, let those words ring in your ears as you start your day serving your community. With that as the basis for our actions we will find the common ground we all know is there to make OUR fire service better today than it was yesterday...And that my friends is a win/win no matter what side of the coin you're on.

Edited August 7, 2016 by FFPCogs

[AFS1970 504]

We can debate the cost factors until the cows come home. The fact is that the bulk of the budget (as FFPCogs said) in a career department goes to salaries. The bulk of the budget in a volunteer department goes elsewhere. Sure there may be more expensive apparatus but then again how many in a career department complain about their low bid apparatus. You can't have it both ways. We all know cities have been trying to be both career and volunteer for years.

 

What really troubles me about this study is the statement that volunteers have increased. This would not normally be a concern except that much of the recruitment efforts of the past few years have been focused on how few volunteers there are. Which is it, more or less? If it is more then great, that is wonderful. However then we probably don't need any recruitment grants. If it is less then fine, we can work with this, but we shouldn't claim otherwise in a study that is released to the public. Whichever the real answer is, let it be what it is and let's work positively with that answer.

 

I have seen similar on a local level with two sides using the same facts to argue two very different opinions on apparatus / manpower deployment. We will never solve anything if we do not figure out what we are solving first.

[bad box 371]

This video does a good job of showing what commonly happens when a house is on fire in an area not protected by a full time staff of on duty firefighters. By the time the fire department arrives, there's no home left to save.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW70mP_bbfo

 

[nfd2004 750]

10 hours ago, bad box said:

This video does a good job of showing what commonly happens when a house is on fire in an area not protected by a full time staff of on duty firefighters. By the time the fire department arrives, there's no home left to save.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW70mP_bbfo

 

 

 Interesting video to say the least. This is the "cost factor" that most people don't really see. My educated guess is that the least amount of fires occur in areas generally served by volunteer firefighters, but those fires that DO OCCUR, would account for the highest losses.

 

  When I look at that video, I can certainly relate to that being my house. Of course like most people who own a home, we have our insurance premiums paid to cover most of the damages to the building and hopefully it's contents. But what can't be replaced is all the personnel belongings that we gather over the years. Photos of our family members that can't be replaced, maybe our long time pet friends, and we of course are not counting the life hazard that is involved here waiting for a fire dept to show up.

 

 No folks, the price goes way beyond that cost of a few firefighters being able to quickly get that first and most important line in place. Somebody in the comments section of this video mentions that this is a place with a population of 47,000 people. Why isn't there at least some career firefighters on duty ? If that's true, "I have the same question".

 

  I felt this video explained so much what words could not. So I decided to passed it on to our city officials here in Norwich, Ct. (see thread - Fractured Fire Service of Norwich, Ct).  Along with the newspaper article that came out on July 3, 2016. Because what I find significant in the comparison of BOTH places is that one Norwich Volunteer Fire Chief even stated that: "they meet the NFPA Standard of answering 90 percent of their calls in 10 minutes". Well, in the case of this video, that department met that standard as well. It's just that as we wait and wait, this building continues to burn as the clock ticks. We basically get the full effect of what words just can not express. And as I watch it, I can certainly picture that being my house as I watch that fire chief, the only guy on the scene, do his 360 walk around and then try to look like he's actually doing something.

[SECTMB 612]

It's easy, of course, to analyze post incident, the actions of the department.  Suffice to say, the outcome would have been much different if an engine arrived at the same time the Chief officer did.  There is no doubting that the added volunteer response time of up to 5 minutes or more, gives the fire the opportunity to grow exponentially and cause significantly more damage.  In this case going from major damage to the garage to significant if not total loss of the whole house.  

 

This increased damage is the cost the public must be willing to accept or pay the difference between a volunteer department and a paid department through increased taxes.

 

A question? is this an incident where a command vehicle with a CAFS system could be utilized to either extinguish or temporarily suppress the fire till the cavalry shows up?  Rather than standing around looking like your working on a plan, wouldn't you rather have the capability to actually do something?   

[PHIL78 129]

16 hours ago, bad box said:

This video does a good job of showing what commonly happens when a house is on fire in an area not protected by a full time staff of on duty firefighters. By the time the fire department arrives, there's no home left to save.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW70mP_bbfo

 

 

Wow. Marshmallows anyone?

[4truck48 25]

I'd love to hear the radio communications at this job. I especially like at about the 13 minute mark the guy taking the vent saw to the bucket.

[FireMedic049 597]

IMO, the video also shows a deficiency in the areas of training/tactics/experience.  The first in suppression unit appears to be just out of view on the right hand side and appears to be an engine.  The appear to park a fair bit back from the house and stretch a couple of handlines and a couple of minutes later, what appears to be a weak stream from a deck gun appears.  The deck gun is doing little to help since the stream is so broken/weak by the time it gets near the house.  It kind of seems like they had the right strategy, but the wrong execution.

 

This fire was begging for the first engine to park directly in front of it and dump it's tank on the fire with the deckgun while a water supply was established and handlines stretched for protection/suppression (assuming the manpower to do that which they appear to have had in this case).

 

While arriving quickly is certainly important, it's equally important to know what you should be doing once you get there and then do it.

[nfd2004 750]

FireMedic, I think most people would say leave room for the truck to park in front of the building. And if they know that the truck is coming in the opposite way, stop just before the building so the Truck has a shot at using the ladder. 

As bad as this video appears to be, as I see it the guy driving that first due engine did about the best job as anybody. 

 

Of course that is all Monday morning quarterbacking. It may not actually be the case here. 

 

But beyond any tactics, I think what is very clearly pointed out is how important a quick response is and using an aggressive attack to save the building, or more importantly people.

 

Ten minutes to wait for water while a building burns is several minutes of waiting too long if there is any hope of saving anything. 

 

Dollars and sense wise, saving 3 billion dollars a year might be saved in some salaries but I don't think in overall losses. That cost may actually be very high if figured in overall

[FireMedic049 597]

28 minutes ago, nfd2004 said:

FireMedic, I think most people would say leave room for the truck to park in front of the building. And if they know that the truck is coming in the opposite way, stop just before the building so the Truck has a shot at using the ladder. 

As bad as this video appears to be, as I see it the guy driving that first due engine did about the best job as anybody. 

 

Of course that is all Monday morning quarterbacking. It may not actually be the case here. 

Yeah, most people would say that, but they also say stuff like you should always lay in and some other things that aren't always the best option.

 

In this situation, the best place for the first engine is right in front in order to effectively utilize the deck gun to slow the progress of the fire.  From the view provided, it appears that it would be very possible for the engine to take a position along the curb at the end of the driveway and still leave plenty of room for the Tower that arrived to get a good position since there aren't cars in the roadway and overhead wires don't seem to be an issue.  In this case, the Tower didn't exactly take the address, so the engine wouldn't have necessarily been in the way anyway.

 

Another possible scenario would be for the first engine to dump their tank thru the deck gun and then move forward to get out of the way for the Tower in front of the house.

28 minutes ago, nfd2004 said:

But beyond any tactics, I think what is very clearly pointed out is how important a quick response is and using an aggressive attack to save the building, or more importantly people.

 

Ten minutes to wait for water while a building burns is several minutes of waiting too long if there is any hope of saving anything. 

 

Dollars and sense wise, saving 3 billion dollars a year might be saved in some salaries but I don't think in overall losses. That cost may actually be very high if figured in overall

This is very true.  I had a similar experience a couple weeks ago working my side job on the ambulance.  Reported kitchen fire late morning on a weekday in a 2 story garden style apartment building.  That community is served by a volunteer department.  My partner and I were the first arriving unit (aside from police) 5 minutes after dispatch.  At that point, I don't believe any of the VFDs alerted for the call had a unit on the road yet.

 

Upon our arrival, there was heavy fire venting out of a 1st floor window, middle of the row.  The 2nd floor window above had failed and that apartment was starting to catch and there was some light smoke from the eaves and roof vents of the common attic.  I would estimate it was at least 5 minutes after we arrived until the first fire unit arrived.  Which was actually the career chief of a combination department responding as the initial RIT, immediately followed by the 1st due VFD.  They brought their 75' quint with 250-300 gallons of water on board rather than one of their pumpers with at least 750 gallons of water.  This was important since it's well known that their water system in general is poor and known to be poor in this complex.  

 

They arrived with 4 on the quint - Assistant Chief driving with 3 FFs who aren't exactly the A team.  I made the hydrant connection for them and my partner pumped their unit for the first hour or so (he was a former member of that VFD).  The fire was growing, but it was still possible to get a stop on it and hold it to the apartments already affected.  Well, 10 hours later as we left the scene, they had burned the roof off 2/3 of the building with significant damage to the living areas.  It was only 2/3 because they managed to get most of a trench cut done on the one side before getting chased off the roof, but they also started it about 10-15 later than they should have despite having the resources to do so.  They didn't even try on the other side. 

 

The poor water supply was definitely a problem, but the combination of a slow response, initial personnel not really up to the task at hand and some initial strategic/tactical decisions that could've been better, resulted in a near total loss of the building (at least 24 apartments) rather than only a few apartments.

 

In the aftermath, the focus of the public and media was the problems with the water infrastructure and linking that to the result of the incident with no consideration about the role that response time, proficiency of the fire department and the decision making played in the result that day.

[nfd2004 750]

I think most SOPs would clearly state the engine co to leave the front of the building open for any incoming ladder company. That's a pretty standard policy. Basically what it says is: "You can stretch more line but you can't stretch more ladder".

 

Whatever the way the boss there decided to fight that fire was his responsibility. In this case the point is NOT "HOW he decided to fight it", "but how long it took them before they even could BEGIN to fight it".

Edited August 14, 2016 by nfd2004

[gamewell45 258]

On 8/12/2016 at 9:55 PM, bad box said:

This video does a good job of showing what commonly happens when a house is on fire in an area not protected by a full time staff of on duty firefighters. By the time the fire department arrives, there's no home left to save.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW70mP_bbfo

 

That's why most people have fire insurance; you hope you never need it, but if you do, it's there.

[fdalumnus 165]

34 minutes ago, gamewell45 said:

That's why most people have fire insurance; you hope you never need it, but if you do, it's there.

 

But do they have enough in coverage to cover their losses ? Is the insurance company going to pay in a timely factor ? 

 

I recently spoke to an old friend of mine whose is a career ff in one municipality while being a fire commissioner and and volunteer in the town he resides in. Told me his vfd has trouble just getting a rig out the door. I suggested it may be time to hire. His response was his taxes were close to 20k a year, how much more can the citizens afford. I told him whre I worked (combo dept w/ 3 around the clock} the average homeowner paid about three hundred dollars a year in fire taxes. Of course the people with the mansions paid lots more, but they were happy to pay, they wanted service. Conversation ended. 

 

Again, when ISO comes into the equation, things change. BNechis could elaborate better than I ever can about the fire ins. premium vs fire tax story

[FFPCogs 863]

51 minutes ago, fdalumnus said:

 

I recently spoke to an old friend of mine whose is a career ff in one municipality while being a fire commissioner and and volunteer in the town he resides in. Told me his vfd has trouble just getting a rig out the door. I suggested it may be time to hire. His response was his taxes were close to 20k a year, how much more can the citizens afford. I told him whre I worked (combo dept w/ 3 around the clock} the average homeowner paid about three hundred dollars a year in fire taxes. Of course the people with the mansions paid lots more, but they were happy to pay, they wanted service. Conversation ended. 

 

 

In some communities people are willing to pay an increase for paid firefighters, in others they are not, no matter how small that increase might be. That is their choice and it is they that have to live with that decision.  Now I don't know anything about this town from the video, nor will I comment on their operations here...I wasn't there, and video or not, there are factors which I may not know that may have impacted this particular fire. If I lived in this (or any) community and the VFD always ended up with the same or similar results, than you bet your a$$ I'd be asking some questions and demanding some answers. 

 

From my own experience, one of the major factors that comes up when the idea of adding some career staffing is tossed about, beyond the money, is a resistance on the part of many volunteers. This resistance stems from fairly common belief among vollys that this step is the beginning of the end for their VFDs. It may not be right, prudent, proper, logical or whatever, but the feeling that once the door opens the days of the volunteers are numbered is very real...and it does influence decisions. And quite frankly it is not without at least a modicum of supporting evidence that this is true in some cases. This brings me back to my earlier post. While we all should be thinking about those we serve first, we often don't and we justify that with any number of reasons, including a fear of being eliminated over time. The animosity and "us" against "them" mentality which so permeates the fire service today has created this environment and the negative results that stem from it. No matter how "right" an argument may be the simple reality is all the stakeholders have to be on board so that those who are served are served in THEIR best interest. It is a travesty that this is so often overlooked in the pursuit of this or that agenda. There is much that binds us all as firefighters, and nothing more so than our common mission of protecting life and property, but we have let so much interfere with that truth and become so entrenched on our "side" of the divide that it sometimes seems impossible to bridge the gap. But that gap can be bridged with a little effort...and more importantly, a little courage to do what best for our citizens instead of ourselves.. 

Edited August 14, 2016 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

6 hours ago, nfd2004 said:

I think most SOPs would clearly state the engine co to leave the front of the building open for any incoming ladder company. That's a pretty standard policy. Basically what it says is: "You can stretch more line but you can't stretch more ladder".

 

Right, but there are situations in which it is appropriate for the engine to park in front of the building and this would be one of them.  Additionally, the goal of that "standard policy" is to not block the truck from being able to park in front.  In this situation, it appears to me that the engine could have taken a position at the end of the driveway to more effectively utilize the deck gun while still leaving enough room for the truck to either pull nose-to-nose with them or parallel to them and be able to operate as needed for this fire.  Thus, the functional objective of the SOP is still met, but the engine has the best position for its needs too.

 

6 hours ago, nfd2004 said:

Whatever the way the boss there decided to fight that fire was his responsibility. In this case the point is NOT "HOW he decided to fight it", "but how long it took them before they even could BEGIN to fight it".

 

The point of the post may have been about how long it took to begin the fight, but the lessons learned includes the how it was fought.

[FireMedic049 597]

52 minutes ago, FFPCogs said:

In some communities people are willing to pay an increase for paid firefighters, in others they are not, no matter how small that increase might be. That is their choice and it is they that have to live with that decision.  Now I don't know anything about this town from the video, nor will I comment on their operations here...I wasn't there, and video or not, there are factors which I may not know that may have impacted this particular fire. If I lived in this (or any) community and the VFD always ended up with the same or similar results, than you bet your a$$ I'd be asking some questions and demanding some answers. 

 

 You and I might ask those questions and demand answers, but we are looking at this from an informed perspective based on our years of fire service experience.  Most of our citizens do not have that experience to draw from when assessing performance of their local fire department.  It's basically a real world example of Pavlov's theory in action.

 

The citizens have been conditioned over time that when a fire occurs, the fire department shows up at some point relatively soon afterwards, squirts some water at it, the house is a loss, everybody goes back to the fire station to pat themselves on the back about how great of a job they did and the public praises the FD for their efforts (since the whole block didn't burn down I guess).  The community has been conditioned to expect that when a fire breaks out, the building will burn down and stopping it short of that is the exception rather than the rule.  It's not really their fault because they don't really know the results could be different.

 

I've had the opportunity to observe numerous FDs in action (primarily VFDs) while working on the ambulance over the years.  I've witnessed many R&C fires that gutted the whole house because of the FDs actions.  I've witnessed some fires that despite the FD's best efforts, the fire still went out.  The public simply has no concept of what a "good job" actually is.  The incident I described above is a prime example of this.  The post incident focus was on the water supply problem being the reason most of the building burned down, but the FD's shortcomings/initial actions/decisions all played a role in the fire getting as big as it did.

 

I've used this analogy a number of times regarding this and it applies regardless of the type of department, hamburgers can be pretty tasty, curb your hunger and leave you feeling satisfied, but if you've never tasted a quality steak, then you don't know how much better that steak can be compared to the hamburger.  Once you know, that hamburger may not be as satisfying as it once was.

 

 

[Bnechis 3,961]

3 hours ago, gamewell45 said:

That's why most people have fire insurance; you hope you never need it, but if you do, it's there.

In the last five years we have seen at least a dozen middle to high end homes with catastrophic fires, that are insured and still sit burnout. The families can't afford to repair them even with the insurance.

 

about six years ago my free standing two car garage was distroyed in a storm and it took me over two years of fighting with the insurance company to pay. Even then they did not pay everything I was entitled to. The biggest fight I had was with getting replacement value, which they refused to pay until it was made very clear that my policy covered replacement value. Even then they didn't want to pay.

[Bnechis 3,961]

1 hour ago, FFPCogs said:

In some communities people are willing to pay an increase for paid firefighters, in others they are not, no matter how small that increase might be. That is their choice and it is they that have to live with that decision.  Now I don't know anything about this town from the video, nor will I comment on their operations here...I wasn't there, and video or not, there are factors which I may not know that may have impacted this particular fire. If I lived in this (or any) community and the VFD always ended up with the same or similar results, than you bet your a$$ I'd be asking some questions and demanding some answers. 

 

From my own experience, one of the major factors that comes up when the idea of adding some career staffing is tossed about, beyond the money, is a resistance on the part of many volunteers. This resistance stems from fairly common belief among vollys that this step is the beginning of the end for their VFDs. It may not be right, prudent, proper, logical or whatever, but the feeling that once the door opens the days of the volunteers are numbered is very real...and it does influence decisions. And quite frankly it is not without at least a modicum of supporting evidence that this is true in some cases. This brings me back to my earlier post. While we all should be thinking about those we serve first, we often don't and we justify that with any number of reasons, including a fear of being eliminated over time. The animosity and "us" against "them" mentality which so permeates the fire service today has created this environment and the negative results that stem from it. No matter how "right" an argument may be the simple reality is all the stakeholders have to be on board so that those who are served are served in THEIR best interest. It is a travesty that this is so often overlooked in the pursuit of this or that agenda. There is much that binds us all as firefighters, and nothing more so than our common mission of protecting life and property, but we have let so much interfere with that truth and become so entrenched on our "side" of the divide that it sometimes seems impossible to bridge the gap. But that gap can be bridged with a little effort...and more importantly, a little courage to do what best for our citizens instead of ourselves.. 

Yes the community must decide, but they must also be given information that is truthful. We just witnessed in Portchester the mayor and chief swear they had 150 interior volunteers, when the records show less than 60. They said, don't worry, the dept. didn't need career personnel, but in two months time their are now mounting complaints that the response times are noticeably worst. If the dept. lies to itself and the public, how can the public make a proper judgement?

 

you are correct that this attitude exists, but in far to many VFD the real threat to the members is, declining membership, failing to respond in a timely manner and lack of training.

[Bnechis 3,961]

So what are the costs vs savings when we include insurance?

 

in my city the average taxpayer is paying less than $275/yr for a career fire department. If we eliminated the FD and gave back everyone's $ the cost of insurance on those average homes would increase by about $1,200/yr.

 

If we were to switch to a volunteer dept. to main the same rating as we have now, it would require a minimum of 48 volunteers responding on every fire call.

 

so the big question is how many communities can manage that?

[BFD1054 1,552]

Unfortunately, most citizens don't worry about their fire coverage...until they need it. 

As many of you have stated, most civilians are clueless as to what or who is protecting them.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard "I live in New Windsor, why are you (Vails Gate) here?" Well, because you live in the Vails Gate fire district, within the Town of New Windsor. 

I am currently purchasing a home in another fire district. Some of my first questions were "what is the water system" and "what emergency services am I getting?" That is because I know enough to ask.

Many people will say you can't justify a career dept in XYZ town. Well, it would be justified the first fire where a life or property were saved, no?

A good start toward this would be (do I dare say it), consolidation.

[FireMedic049 597]

3 hours ago, Bnechis said:

Yes the community must decide, but they must also be given information that is truthful. We just witnessed in Portchester the mayor and chief swear they had 150 interior volunteers, when the records show less than 60. They said, don't worry, the dept. didn't need career personnel, but in two months time their are now mounting complaints that the response times are noticeably worst. If the dept. lies to itself and the public, how can the public make a proper judgement?

 

you are correct that this attitude exists, but in far to many VFD the real threat to the members is, declining membership, failing to respond in a timely manner and lack of training.

Exactly. 

 

In my area, one of the local TV stations did a multi-part story about fire response in the metro area (multi-county) last year.  There's only a handful or so of fully paid departments, a number of combination (mostly volunteer) departments and the vast majority are all volunteer.  The story covered things like response times, scratching calls, lack of manpower, mutual aid choices, mandatory training, funding and a number of other things.

 

Overall, the stories were met with very vocal disapproval from the volunteer side who were very defensive and labeled it as bashing them.  IMO, there were some flaws in the story, some things needed more explanation to better understand the information and there was a little of the typical sensationalism mixed in, but overall it was a fair report.  However, each topic that they covered IS an actual problem in our area and the volunteers didn't help themselves out by refusing to comment on incidents that they were directly involved in or tried to not answer some questions.

 

The response from the volunteers, aside from calling for a boycott of and protest at the news station before the first segment actually aired, was pretty much, the reporter doesn't know what he's talking about, there is no problem and people shouldn't comment unless they join their local VFD.

 

Ironically, in the middle of this, there was a working fire in a mid-rise apartment building (6-7 stories) in a community served by 3 independent VFDs, early evening on a weekend if I'm not mistaken.  All 3 companies were due on the call along with a Tower from a neighboring community and possibly 1 other mutual aid company.  The Tower is the 2nd due truck to this location and the most distant unit from the scene (about 10 minutes depending on traffic).  The Tower arrived as the first unit on scene by several minutes, in part because they have live-ins and other members at the station almost all of the time.  This is not an unusual thing to occur.  The Tower's Fire Chief took command of the incident as no one else was there yet and stayed the IC thru pretty much the whole incident.  The first due company (no more than a mile away, if that) arrived late enough that they were parked out by other apparatus.  They had to park on the main road running past the building rather than being in front or in the rear of the building since other apparatus were already there.

 

Of course, there was a lot of patting each other on the back online after the incident about how great a job they all did, but no realization that they failed to live up to the expectations of their community.

 

Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity presented to them, acknowledging that the things covered are in deed problems and going to their community and leaders and saying this is what we need to better serve the community, whether it be direct financial support or admin help, recruiting help, career staff, etc.  Instead of using the news stories and the media in general to get their message out there so people know they need help, they chose to "punish" the reporter and station by snubbing them.  Instead of using the situation to try to shift more of the funding burden off constant fundraising by the volunteers themselves and onto the citizens they serve via a fire tax or increasing an existing one, they squandered it.  We're a year plus past the stories and the only thing we have to really show for it is occasional snide comments on internet making reference to that news station and how they hate volunteers.

Edited August 14, 2016 by FireMedic049

[FFPCogs 863]

3 hours ago, Bnechis said:

Yes the community must decide, but they must also be given information that is truthful. We just witnessed in Portchester the mayor and chief swear they had 150 interior volunteers, when the records show less than 60. They said, don't worry, the dept. didn't need career personnel, but in two months time their are now mounting complaints that the response times are noticeably worst. If the dept. lies to itself and the public, how can the public make a proper judgement?

 

you are correct that this attitude exists, but in far to many VFD the real threat to the members is, declining membership, failing to respond in a timely manner and lack of training.

To your last point here, you'll get no argument from me, but those members that are left often have the mentality that "their" VFD is done for if career FFs are hired. The fact that the membership has dwindled and newer members are becoming harder and harder to come by has little to do with this reaction.

 

On your first point, absolutely. Many VFDs stretch the truth to the breaking point and beyond to show adequate personnel and thus give the residents a false sense of security. Some of this I suspect goes to the "us" vs "them" mentality as discussed earlier, while a good deal more has to do with wanting to maintain the status quo and perks (material and otherwise) that come with it. 

 

In the end what we all should be striving for is a balance. Adequate personnel to respond effectively 24/7 while keeping costs in check, standardized training and certification requirements to help ensure at least a minimum standard of competency and an environment where ALL firefighters can flourish if they are so inclined regardless of pay status so that those served are served well.