dwcfireman

And this is why I moved South!

This was an interesting and new one to me.
 
 
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-spicy-chili-warehouse-fire-20170313-story.html

I would explain to the mayor and residents that the firefighters will do the possible; the impossible will just have to wait like it or not.

 

Pretty neat idea.
 
 

Sadly I know this all too well, as this is the system I've been working for 20+ years now. My point in noting that above was that some of the higher salaries maybe attributed to working more hours. All other things being equal, the added hours would make pay 40% higher than the average taxpayer working 40 hrs a week.

I wonder what effect the wildfire season has. If a FF deploys on a wildfire assignment for a week, are they paid every hour they are on that assignment? I'd assume they would be, since when they're back at basecamp they aren't really free to leave. That might cause someone to rack up a lot of OT hours.

 
So, if a FF/EMT-P makes $250k in a year after overtime, the OT cost is $162,300.  The regular salary is at just over $40/hour (assuming a 4 platoon schedule for math purposes), which correlates to about $60/hr for OT.  This comes out to 2,700 HOURS of overtime!!!  That's more hours than the regular schedule (2,183 hours)!  Now, this also means that these firefighters are working 4,883 hours per year, when there is 8,760 hours in a year.  They are literally working MORE THAN HALF THE YEAR!!!
 
I don't know about you, but I would want some free time and some extra hours off, especially since this business is extremely stressful, both physically and mentally.
 
 
The math doesn't seem to work out right.  If police and fire are making the unusually substantial overtime earnings, it might actually be cheaper to hire a few more people to alleviate the amount of overtime, as there is a tipping point where overtime does cost more than hiring more personnel (that point is different for individual agencies based on pay rates and benefits).
 
But, then there is this...
 
If everyone is working this extraordinary amount of overtime, what is it doing to the personnel?  Are they getting enough sleep?  Are they becoming mentally and physically deprived of basic needs because they are at work more than they are at home?  Are injury and accident rates rising?  Are they setting themselves up for that preventable injury or accident?  Working that much, as I've said before in another thread, is that this much work will inevitably wear out the personnel to a point where cognitive abilities will not be fast enough to stop an injury or accident from happening.  Why kill ourselves in the process of not trying to kill ourselves.  I'm fairly sure we all want to make it to retirement.

 
So, if a FF/EMT-P makes $250k in a year after overtime, the OT cost is $162,300.  The regular salary is at just over $40/hour (assuming a 4 platoon schedule for math purposes), which correlates to about $60/hr for OT.  This comes out to 2,700 HOURS of overtime!!!  That's more hours than the regular schedule (2,183 hours)!  Now, this also means that these firefighters are working 4,883 hours per year, when there is 8,760 hours in a year.  They are literally working MORE THAN HALF THE YEAR!!!
 
I don't know about you, but I would want some free time and some extra hours off, especially since this business is extremely stressful, both physically and mentally.
 
 
The math doesn't seem to work out right.  If police and fire are making the unusually substantial overtime earnings, it might actually be cheaper to hire a few more people to alleviate the amount of overtime, as there is a tipping point where overtime does cost more than hiring more personnel (that point is different for individual agencies based on pay rates and benefits).
 
But, then there is this...
 
If everyone is working this extraordinary amount of overtime, what is it doing to the personnel?  Are they getting enough sleep?  Are they becoming mentally and physically deprived of basic needs because they are at work more than they are at home?  Are injury and accident rates rising?  Are they setting themselves up for that preventable injury or accident?  Working that much, as I've said before in another thread, is that this much work will inevitably wear out the personnel to a point where cognitive abilities will not be fast enough to stop an injury or accident from happening.  Why kill ourselves in the process of not trying to kill ourselves.  I'm fairly sure we all want to make it to retirement.

 
The FDNY used their new Drone for the first time during the recent 4th alarm fire in the Bronx.  According to the article the Drone provided a video feed of roof conditions to the Incident Commander which helped direct fire ground operations.
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/drone-helps-fdny-fight-bronx-fire-article-1.2990371
 

They Anounced it over Citywide during one of the final progress reports last night that it was the first ever use of a Drone !! 

Big OT number are almost always a result of failure to properly staff a department. With enough staff to ensure minimum staffing and cover some anticipated OT they would not see these "windfalls". Also, the article notes their numbers are total compensation (salary+benefits+OT) which is different than how much actually money the individuals take home. One must wonder the cost of health insurance and other similar expense in CA vs. other places. I know our City adds roughly 40% to any wages to figure benefits. In many places the pension systems are very different, some pay based on your total best year or years, other only on base wages. Also, while some FD's in CA run 42 hr weeks, many (most?) still run 56's? which is 40% more hrs. 
 
As noted above someone's math has to be way off, to say that every $1 of OT costs $1 to the pension system. That would be a 100% contribution and would be basically make overtime cost 3 times straight pay instead of 1.5?

Just an interesting idea that my hometown's department is doing:
 
My friend just became chief, and he is truly concerned about the current condition and future of the department.  So, he sat down with the company's membership committee and built a 12 question survey to ask FORMER members what they liked about the company, what they disliked, what drove them to leave the company, and whether certain incentives would have made them stay longer or bring them back or entice new members to the organization.  I filled both sides of both sheets of paper detailing MY positive and negative experiences with the company (he already knows my story, but the membership committee doesn't know who I am).  Both of my parents filled it out, and several of my friends have as well.  I think this is a cool idea because you can evaluate the common problems that past members had with the organization, see what practices worked the best, and determine what the best recruiting and retention efforts will work the best based off suggestions.
 
Like I said, just an interesting idea.

Just an interesting idea that my hometown's department is doing:
 
My friend just became chief, and he is truly concerned about the current condition and future of the department.  So, he sat down with the company's membership committee and built a 12 question survey to ask FORMER members what they liked about the company, what they disliked, what drove them to leave the company, and whether certain incentives would have made them stay longer or bring them back or entice new members to the organization.  I filled both sides of both sheets of paper detailing MY positive and negative experiences with the company (he already knows my story, but the membership committee doesn't know who I am).  Both of my parents filled it out, and several of my friends have as well.  I think this is a cool idea because you can evaluate the common problems that past members had with the organization, see what practices worked the best, and determine what the best recruiting and retention efforts will work the best based off suggestions.
 
Like I said, just an interesting idea.

 
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:
 
 
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.

 
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:
 
 
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.

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.

 
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:
 
 
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.

 
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:
 
 
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.

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

WOW. Hard to believe this is an EMS station! Looks to be designed well and give FDNY*EMS crews the home they deserve. And note that the only time FDNY EMS crews see the station is during shift change, since they are posted on street corners. They designed this primarily to be an architectural masterpiece. They found the money to pay for this, but not raises?
 
http://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/12306-emergency-medical-service-station-50-by-deanwolf-architects

M' Ave - Nicely put. It's not easy in our current society to find the time to volunteer. On one hand I'm all behind the concept of consolidation and it makes sense, but I've experienced it from the other side that once you give up control of your own destiny, you'll never get it back. Sure the fire chiefs don't want to give up their kingdoms, but they aren't the ones I'm truly concerned about. I worry about the politicians. Everyone could be on board when the consolidation happens, but then 2 or 3 administrations down the road new people take over and decide on massive changes and you're like, "this isn't how it was supposed to go." You may have had 1 engine & 1 ladder in your station. When it comes time to replace the engine, the new administration decides to buy a quint and dispose of the engine and reallocate the ladder to a different station. You have two career men on duty who roll the quint on every call but there's nothing left for the responding volunteers, so they end up driving to the scene in their cars. Let's face it, part of the fun of volunteering is the ability to climb on the apparatus and respond making some noise. That's just one example of how things could change over time and the local department can do nothing about it because they are now part of a bigger entity. I never thought I would think that way or even write it, but I have seen some weird things as the years go by. 
 
On a related topic, I wonder if Mt Kisco is happy about giving up their police force? If you get inside and really study it, is what was promised really happening? I hope for them it is, but I wouldn't put it past the powers to be to decide that they are one officer short on the Evening shift for the whole Westchester County Police force. To save on over-time, they'll drop from 3 to 2 cruisers in Mt Kisco for the Eve shift and if necassary they'll divert a cruiser from the parkway if they get busy. But low and behold, the car on the parkway stops a suspicious vehicle and the closest back-up cruiser happens to be in Mt Kisco, so he jumps on the parkway and drives up to the next town as a back-up and leaves Mt Kisco with one car for 45 minutes. The people may say, "we were always happy to send a car or two mutual aid, manpower depending, but we would always keep two cars in town as a home guard. How come at times there's only one car?" 
 
I'm just using Mt Kisco as an example because I'm familiar with their situation. I hope it doesn't happen that way and I hope the people of Kisco are happy with the move. No disrespect to the WCPD.
 
So I would say that consolidation is the way to go given the current climate, but I would say to tread lightly and get certain things in writing to protect your jurisdiction. 

There is no doubt in my mind that housing costs are NUMBER ONE.  There are many realities here, many that have set in in the Tri-state area.  Everyone, even people buying the million dollar home, is working harder and longer.  Many households have two working parents.  How about time spent commuting?  Thats getting longer too.
 
I haven't volunteered in a few years.  One day, I could find myself living in a place where I could volunteer again, but the reality is....I probably won't.  Why?  Because I have to work a second job, or I stay home with my child on days off while my wife is at work.  After work, well, that's the time we get to spend together, not much time left for drill, meetings, ect.  I'll have an hour, hour and half drive home from work...not looking to spend more time away from home.
 
I think volunteering is great in some communities.  I think it's a storied and proud institution, but in many places, it's days are numbered (or they should be).  Entirely necessary training requierments have become more and more onorous.  attendance in some places is dropping.  Smaller dept.s are calling for Mx aide every single time there is a fire.
 
What's the answer?  Consolidation.  Use the dedicated volunteer force more efficiently, let them handle a larger call volume and coverage area.  Supplement that force with a reasonable career organization and spread them out as well.  This all sounds familiar....like something a certain captain put out years ago.....I gues we're all still looking out for our little kingdoms and lot the greater good.

Dept by us uses the duty company concept week to week where 1  of the 4 companies in town staffs the firehouse with a crew & 1 officers from 4 pm to6am & 7am to7am on weekends anyone on duty shift get credit toward stipend 

 
 
This is what I meant about time requirement.  You have to make a certain number of meetings, certain number of drills, and make a certain number of calls to stay as an "active" firefighter.  I've heard of some volunteer departments that have actual time requirements, such as a duty night where a specific crew is on call and hangs out at the fire house.  It's a cool concept because this time at the fire house can be used for training AND you have a fully staffed apparatus out of the door immediately should an alarm arise.  Unfortunately, it's not a model that could work for everyone (especially smaller departments).