LayTheLine

So, are we going to  get walloped by a super snowstorm, or are we going to have only a couple inches?
 
I vote a couple of inches. Be sure to add your vote to the poll above.

 
https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/inside-one-of-the-countrys-busiest-fire-stations-that-serves-the-city-of-los

 
 Sir, yes I am aware of how things went just prior to the merger of the NHRFD. That's why I used it to make my point.
 
 So when do these other places start ? And who throws in the white hat and collar pins to say, "Yes, I'm ready to do the right thing" ? "I care more about the people I am assigned to protect, than my own self image". Lets put that FIRST QUESTION out there. Whoever it is I will stand and salute. Those are really Great Leaders who are willing to do that for OTHERS. Therefore, let the Leaders take the Lead. Let them be the first to show us how important regionalization is for the fire service today.
 
 That is how we can begin.

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.

nfd2004 - I can see you have your heels dug in on this one and won't budge, which is understandable with the fire service problems in your own city. Do I think that regionalization is a good idea? In many instances it is and I've stated that. Without beating a dead horse all my point was is that any regionalization should be well thought out. You helped prove my point by referring to the Northern Hudson Regional Fire Department, which sounds like a success. But if you look at the history of its creation, you'll see that the early planning and discussions began back in the early 1980's and the department became a reality on January 11, 1999. So obviuosly they took their time, thought through potential problems, garnered public support and figured out the funding. It wasn't a flip the switch over-night and off we go. Final thought: Go slow, tread lightly and make sure your citizens really are aware of what they're signing up for.

NFD2004 - I agree that fire depatments work for the citizens and not themselves. Any changes should come at the will of the people, not the fire chiefs.
 
Perhaps I focused too much on the fire service alone. Before the citizens of any village, town, county, etc., make any changes to what the y pay for, they should be aware of what they are voting to change, be it fire, police, DPW, schools, sanitation departments, etc. Perhaps the fire service is the closest of any government service that should consider consolidation. But it should be considered with due diligence. Study the good models (Fairfax, LA County) to find out what works and what doesn't. Who will have control and will each department have a seat on the governing board? How will it be funded? Is there an escape clause? 
 
I've seen a consolidation of fire districts that went horribly wrong. I've also seen 3 towns consolidate into a school district without much thought. Town A had double the population of either Town B & C. Now the elected officials come from Town A. Town A pretty much rules the roost. The elementary schools have been consolidated, making for very long bus rides for children from Towns B & C. This could have been avoided if certain controls were in place, such as each town gets at least one seat on the school district committee, or perhaps make a central middle school & high school but allow each town to have control over their elementary schools (as is done in other regional school districts.)  
 
Once a few years go by and the elected officials turnover, there may be a whole new set of ideas of how to run any governmental department which may not be in the best interest of all members in that district (be it fire, police, school, etc.)

nfd2004 - I can see you have your heels dug in on this one and won't budge, which is understandable with the fire service problems in your own city. Do I think that regionalization is a good idea? In many instances it is and I've stated that. Without beating a dead horse all my point was is that any regionalization should be well thought out. You helped prove my point by referring to the Northern Hudson Regional Fire Department, which sounds like a success. But if you look at the history of its creation, you'll see that the early planning and discussions began back in the early 1980's and the department became a reality on January 11, 1999. So obviuosly they took their time, thought through potential problems, garnered public support and figured out the funding. It wasn't a flip the switch over-night and off we go. Final thought: Go slow, tread lightly and make sure your citizens really are aware of what they're signing up for.

NFD2004 - I agree that fire depatments work for the citizens and not themselves. Any changes should come at the will of the people, not the fire chiefs.
 
Perhaps I focused too much on the fire service alone. Before the citizens of any village, town, county, etc., make any changes to what the y pay for, they should be aware of what they are voting to change, be it fire, police, DPW, schools, sanitation departments, etc. Perhaps the fire service is the closest of any government service that should consider consolidation. But it should be considered with due diligence. Study the good models (Fairfax, LA County) to find out what works and what doesn't. Who will have control and will each department have a seat on the governing board? How will it be funded? Is there an escape clause? 
 
I've seen a consolidation of fire districts that went horribly wrong. I've also seen 3 towns consolidate into a school district without much thought. Town A had double the population of either Town B & C. Now the elected officials come from Town A. Town A pretty much rules the roost. The elementary schools have been consolidated, making for very long bus rides for children from Towns B & C. This could have been avoided if certain controls were in place, such as each town gets at least one seat on the school district committee, or perhaps make a central middle school & high school but allow each town to have control over their elementary schools (as is done in other regional school districts.)  
 
Once a few years go by and the elected officials turnover, there may be a whole new set of ideas of how to run any governmental department which may not be in the best interest of all members in that district (be it fire, police, school, etc.)

 
I have proposed this idea previously but included neighboring depts in the mix to spread the responsibility.  The 'duty' apparatus responds immediately to any call in the 'mutual' district, supported by the primary department when it assembles their crews.  Many depts are providing dual response these days so designating alternating companies to provide a duty crew can build teamwork and commeraderie while providing immediate response to the community. If two neighboring depts that typically rely on each other can't field a duty crew of 4, then the problem is more serious than some would like to acknowledge.

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.

 

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. 

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. 

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 

My old department had an activity requirement not a time requirement. It seems to have worked well for quite some time, although I am not sure if it is still in place. You got 1 point for each call, drill or meeting. You needed 50 points to stay an active member. The bulk of the department was between 75-100 every year. There were a few heavy hitters with over 200 and a few who struggled to make 50, but all in all it worked.
 
As for recruiting, I have said it before and will say it again. Too many Chiefs give what I call the Psych Out speech. They bemoan the lack of members and then go on to list all the reasons people don't join. I strongly believe this has the effect of making anyone who is trying to decide if they want to volunteer and psyching them out to the point where they just don't bother. How about listing all the reasons people do volunteer, instead.
 
One of the department's in Stamford did a nice piece several years ago, a small card with profiles of 3 members. They picked a local business owner, an electrician working for a construction contractor & a corporate VP of a local company. I don't know how successful it was but it showed a diverse group of volunteers.
 
Then all we have to work out is how to stop chasing new members away, which seems to be the biggest problem.
 

You can read the article without the WSJ:
 
Go to Google and type in : Firehouses Raise Alarm Over Lack of Young Recruits
 
It will be the second one listed in the search.

You can read the article without the WSJ:
 
Go to Google and type in : Firehouses Raise Alarm Over Lack of Young Recruits
 
It will be the second one listed in the search.

You can read the article without the WSJ:
 
Go to Google and type in : Firehouses Raise Alarm Over Lack of Young Recruits
 
It will be the second one listed in the search.

 
I think this is one of the more significant reasons for loss of volunteers, especially in the more affluent communities. The median home price in Pleasantville is over $500K, Briarcliff Manor is over $700K, in Chappaqua and Katonah it is over $800K.  So you lose the younger members who followed their childhood desire or their parents/family into the service because at some point most need to move on. Those who are moving into town and buying homes of these values aren't necessarily inclined to become volunteer firefighters.
 
You just have to listen to the scanner to know that, especially day time, many of the volunteer departments are lucky to get one piece of apparatus on the road and it is usually inadequately staffed.  Sooner or later many of these departments will be forced to go combination.  In some of the more rural departments, the lack of volunteers will undoubtedly affect response times as fewer members to make up a crew need to travel further to make the apparatus.
 
Fifteen years ago when my nephews came into the service as our families fourth generation of volunteers I said they would probably be the last.  I believe I will be correct in that prediction.

Another issue is the housing market in areas where they join. They join as younger members still living at home, go off to college and graduate. Now they come home get a job but are unable to afford or find a suitable home in the town or even nearby to make it for calls. 

There is so much going against volunteer fire departments these days that it's insane to think that any VFD could recruit more volunteers.  There's the time commitment, between training, classes, and alarms that it eats at everyone's personal time to have a social life and spend time with our families.  The stress of working a full time job then being a firefighter on the side doesn't help either.  It's not a wonder why a lot of us have high blood pressure.
 
But, some departments get lucky and gain a few firefighters here and there.  Unfortunately, a lot of those recruits wash out.  They don't have the time.  They realize that they can't make the commitment.  Heck, some realize that fire is scary!  I've seen a few people over my career leave because they were either afraid of fire, heights, or were scared away by the stress of the job.
 
Then, there are people out there that say that can't do it.  These are the people that are happy you got a new truck, and want to take a ride on it, but never fill out the application.  There are so many citizens that could be great firefighters, but they already have themselves in the mindset that they can't do it.  OR, they think that the department is paid and they don't want to "switch careers" at this point in their lives.
 
But, there is another evil working against the volunteer firefighter that always seems to be left un-discussed.  The volunteer fire company.  VFC's always have some sort of minimum time commitment that's associated with their memberships.  Generally speaking, probationary firefighters have to put in the largest commitment, and as your career progresses the less of a commitment you have to make.  A lot of companies make the minimum commitment so high at the beginning that there is a large washout rate.  It's almost like some companies don't want to bring in new firefighters because in this day and age it is far too difficult to keep up with the training and time commitments (never mind that too many people require second and third incomes to survive).
 
There is too much working against the volunteer firefighter. Yes, time commitments are important, especially with newer firefighters that need the training and the experience.  Yes, it's a thankless job to bust you butt for free.  Yes, you lose time in your personal life where you have to leave a party or a family function for the big one.  For those of us who stick through it we show that the volunteer firefighter can prevail.  We show that we do mean something.  We just have to find a way to show everybody else that they can do the same and start handing them applications.