Mount Kisco Mulls Expanding Firehouses

[x635 4,066]

A very interesting read. I never knew that the governance of MKFD was so complex.  When you look at building 3 new firehouses ($22 million) vs building a single firehouse to house all companies ($14 million), it makes sense that it would be cheaper and more efficient to operate just one firehouse. However, the way Mount Kisco FD is set up, that isn't a feasible idea.

 

Quote

MOUNT KISCO, N.Y. -- Mount Kisco officials are exploring the possibility of building additions for all three of the village's firehouses, which would be the biggest change for the buildings in recent history.

 

http://mtkisco.dailyvoice.com/news/mount-kisco-mulls-expanding-firehouses/701979/#.WLjIn6rDVmQ.facebook

[dwcfireman 656]

Quote

The village has a convoluted relationship with the volunteer fire department's four component fire companies. The municipality owns firehouses, while the companies own their equipment. The companies also sign contracts with the village government to offer fire protection, a situation that has them acting as vendors who receive municipal payments. Meanwhile, the Village Board of Trustees appoints members of the Board of Fire Commissioners, with each company having a seat.

 

This is extremely interesting to me.  In my experience with a village fire department, the VILLAGE owned the property, building, AND all equipment and apparatus.  It's strange to me to think that a specific fire company would have ownership of the equipment.

 

The other fact that confuses me in this paragraph is that the Village Board of Trustees APPOINTS a Board of Fire Commissioners.  My experience was that the Village Board WAS the BOC.  I guess when the article states that it's a "convoluted relationship," it's not lying!

 

But, back to the matter of the cost:

 

Quote

The expansion scenarios are grouped under a proposal called Option A, which has a projected total cost of $10,292,387. Cheaper scenarios involve doing upgrades to the firehouses but without additions.

 

Building a completely new firehouse that would host all of the companies under one roof would cost at least $14,000,000, a figure that does not include purchasing land. Another scenario, in which three new firehouses but would be built to house the same companies would cost $22,398,375.

 

Option A definitely sounds the most feasible, and is the most economically fiscal situation.  It is much cheaper to renovate a fire house than it is to replace a fire house.  Then again, as the article further details, the citizens of Chappaqua voted down a fire house expansion last year.  Albeit, the Chappaqua situation is a bit different, as it called for a $15M renovation, $10M to expand and renovate three fire houses isn't too shabby.  I think it's a swell idea.

But, Option B is a pretty good option, too.  Put all four fire companies under one roof.  This is exactly what Peekskill is doing.  Put everyone in a central location.  Yes, Peekskill is a different dynamic than Mount Kisco, as PFD incorporates both paid and volunteer personnel, but the idea of having all of the fire companies under a single roof can promote better synergy among the companies. If you can get them together in one place, and get their training schedules to match up, then you can have the multi-company training that you need to succeed!  The point I'm getting to here is that you can train as an engine company all you want, or a ladder or rescue company, but an actual fire requires the teamwork of all of the companies working as a cohesive group.  Being together in the same building, sharing the same space, sharing the same training tools/props can overwhelmingly provide the cohesiveness that every department needs.

 

Option C just sounds sill to me.  Would it be lovely to have three brand new firehouses with all of the latest technology?  Heck, yeah!  But it is really worth it to the taxpayers?  Is it fair to the taxpayers?  My own department desperately needs a new fire house, but it wouldn't be fair to our taxpayers, the people that we protect, to build a whole new building.  The cost is too astronomical for what we have and what the public needs.  So, why spend more money than you really have to?

 

I understand that departments have to think about fire house design and functionality for the future, but we're talking about tens of millions of dollars that could be utilized elsewhere.  I trust that the Village of Mount Kisco is going to be fiscally responsible with which ever decision they make, but it's going to be with a keen and watchful eye from the public.

[mfc2257 464]

Up until the mid 1990's when the BOFC agreed to build a new firehouse in Millwood, the Millwood Fire Company owned the former headquarters station and the Millwood Fire District paid the Fire Company rent to keep the District's apparatus in the Company's building.  The Company sold the building to the District for a dollar with the promise of a new, modern fire house to be built.  It only took 20 years and tons of legal nonsense for it to happen.

 

Interesting story.... One night many moons ago, there was a dispute over something (the rent I'm assuming) and the commissioners came and got the fire apparatus out of the headquarters station and took it to station 2 on Rt134 over the dispute.  Rumor has it that the apparatus was back the next day.