Bnechis

In trying to decifer the language of this bill I have a few questions.

1. The bill allows for districts to be dissolved and transfer power to the town board. What if a town board does not want to take it over?

2. Each FD has a benevolent association. Would that have to merge as well?

3. I see Mt. Pleasant was mentioned in a post. Was an actual study conducted?

4. How will leadership be established in respects to Chief, Capt, LT, etc.

Thank you.

1. I read that the town board "shall"

2. There are depts with multiple ba's now.

3. I mentioned Mt. Pleasant as an example. I don't know if a formal study has been done, but I have done enough studies to know what is needed based on NFPA and ISO standards.

4. By the Town Board

"The response time would go down and the tax payer bill would go up." said Townline Firefighter Fred Adams. The proposal would make it easier for voters to pass a referendum to get rid of volunteer fire departments, consolidate districts, and move to county paid fire protection."

1) Response time would go down is a good thing.

2) Tax payer bill would go up......That's not what has happened elsewhere.

3) Consolidated districts and a move to county paid fire protection - Yes this legislation moves to consolidate fire districts by merging them under the local town governmnet. So in westchester the following might occur;

In Harrison; "Downtown, Purchase and West Harrison" wold become 1 department. Would it save the taxpayers $$$, dont know, but now they need 9 engines under ISO, if merged they would need 4 to keep the same rating. But if they added a station on North St (by PD & VAC HQ) they would improve town wide response and ISO rating (and with all the Corporations on Westchester Ave it could save $10 - $20 million/yr in premiums).

In Mt Pleasant; It would merge Archville, Hawthorne, Pichantico hills, Pleasantville, Sleepy Hollow, Thornwood, & Valhalla under one dept. currently they have about 19 engines and under ISO would need about 12. At $500,000 equipped the replacement value is $3.5 million.

In Greenburgh it would merge Fairview, Greenville and Hartsdale.

Bedford, Cortland, Lewsboro, Yorktown would all see similar results.

No where in the legislation is "county government" involved and no where is "paid fire protection" an issue. In fact in many cases VFD's that are having trouble getting manning will do better since they will have to man fewer units per station and it will reduce the need to go "paid".

"It just isn't right. We try our best. We do it basically free and it just isn't right." said Adams."

ALS was right on this one. We tried our best to save your child, but...........

And tell the taxpayers on Long Island that its Basically For free. They have VFD's with budget career depts only hope for.

"Response times will go up. Staffing is going to be minimal, just what they need on a truck to cover. Just what they feel is necessary." said Randall Rider President of the Association of Fire Districts. He says the quality of your protection would go down and response times and cost would go up. "The study was done in 2003. It was between 4 and 7 billion then. Now, it would be 8 and a half billion dollars to go to a paid service across New York State." said Rider.

1) Staffing is going to be minimal? How many depts (paid or vol) currently get out the in one minute with 3ff/1of? How many meet any standards. If each dept only had to get 1 or 2 rigs out and the other "stations" did the same it would be easier to get the rigs out quicker with better staffing.

2) The study that was done in 2003 was a total sham. To scare everyone as to cost, it claimed that every vol would have to be replaced with a paid ff (one for one). They included in the numbers non active members, associate members, jr members, non interior members...etc. And they did not include the cost of LOSAP as a current cost. They also did not mention the comptrollers reports that showed how LOSAP were drastically underfunded to get past voters. The also claimed that every vol. station would have to be fully staffed (2 eng, ladder, rescue, chief) which in any large City, region or county system you never find that many staffed rigs, because you have additional stations to provide the 2nd due.

"We'll take it out. " said State Senator Dale Volker.......... He is fighting the bill now saying the move is designed as a way to regionalize services, but it won't lower your taxes. "The problem with some of this consolidation stuff is that you don't save any money at all. What they mean is somebody else takes care of it and probably it'll cost more by the somebody else that takes care of it." said Volker.

Smoke and Mirrors - "The problem with some of this" and "probably it'll cost more"

The bigger issue with this legislation is do not think that your department can get away with high cost and minimal protection forever. The taxpayers have had enough, if its not this legislation it will be something like Mass Propisiton 2 1/2 or Calif Prop 13 that will prevent your dept from getting the funding its use to.

Unfortunatly the NFPA standards are made by way too many people who don't fight fires. Many of their standards may be well intentioned but not well thought out. In my opinion many of there well intentioned standards create their own problems. The committes are made up of many manufacturers and equipment distributers. Realize our gear is heavier and our rigs are too big because of the NFPA and there been mount of firefighters die each year going to less fires. NFPA standards benifit the manufactures more than the firefighter.

Having been an NFPA committee member I see that too many ff's want nothing to do with the process. Since everyone has the ability to comment on what the committee is developing, if you dont comment then whose falt is it?

Can you explain how "Our rigs are too big because of NFPA"? Other than forcing everyone of the back step into an inclosed cab like many rigs were in the 1930 - 40's or during the 60's in inner cities that had to protect the members from rocks.

what makes our rigs so big is depts that ride with 2 ff's but buy 10 man cabs so they can get a trophy at the parade.

The single biggest killer of firefighters is cardiac and prevention is addressed in NFPA 1500 which has been out for over 10 years, how many FD's follow it?

2nd biggest killer is responding/returning from calls. 2 issues here 1st not wearing seat belts is #1, NFPA requires it maybe if more depts followed it there would be less LODD. 2nd issue is rigs that were modified or remain in service beyond there save life (also an NFPA issue).

The original dispatch is in the proper order. The rattle off, some people use the event order, witch will not give you the correct order.

Thanks. Thats the 1st explination I've ever heard. It would have been nice if the powers that be acknowledged our issue and tried to get it reprogrammed.

Well all firefighters both Vol and career need to pass a physical exam too so at that age amd medical cond I hope the dr didnt make him a int FF

1) Not every dept actually does this.

2) I said he was directing traffic not interior FF

The bigger issue is at what point is a death no longer LODD, and just the inevitable

Same...OPENLY. Not hiding it from anyone. How could they?

In NYS its almost imposible because the state pension system. CT does it differently

Why should we even question it? If a member is on duty, eating, sleeping, firefighting, in-house or off-location, on an extended heart and hypertension leave, on way to work or on way home from work, jabbed with a dirty sharp and passes 5 years later, he/she died in/through the performance of duties, thats it. It is pretty clear-cut the way I see it. If a member dies trying to rescue a person while off duty, the municipality should have the decency to cover them LODD, but we all know what could happen with that.

JVC

Since career Depts (in NYS) have manditory retirement age, this would apply more to vol. ff's; Is it realistic to consider it a LODD when an 89 y/o volunteer who is on cardiac meds, and has a host of other medical issues who responds to a fire and is directing traffic when he has "the big one" ?

a) should he have been allowed to participate in the 1st place?

Is the duty the cause of his death or its being 89 with cardiac issues and it was just his time?

Is this any different then taking an Engine, Ladder, Rescue, or ALL of the above

and half the Manpower in 10 mile radius out of town to a Parade or Convention?

Great Point

In the case of a career chief is it part of his compensation package? One reason for the car 24/7 is that it may be cheaper than paying him/her additional salary. He/she is also required to pay income tax on this benefit.

Its one thing to expect a chiefs car that is intended to be available to respond to emergencies to be in/near town, its another thing to expect a vehicle that is part of a compensation package, that allows it to be removed from the area.

Don't most Police chiefs have a take home car?

Most City, Mayors, Manager, DPW and other agency heads also have it as part of there compensation packages.

This was the big fight in NYC years ago when the Rescue companies began taking in jobs... FDNY rescue was assigned to multiples for rescue and recovery of downed FFs due to their advanced training... then they started taking in jobs and were a worthless resource to ffs in need because they themselves were tired from jobs they just cleared and as a result the adopted the next due truck in as a rescue team for ffs in need.... thus the "fast truck" was born in the city. So should a fast team be soley a fast team... absolutely as you want guys that are trained, equipped and fresh to go when you need them the most... when you're in trouble. So are there times you're sitting around while the action is going on, hell yes... but your purpose is to be the life support for your brothers in need... too bad rescues lost site of that early on.

You left out one historical point. Before the FAST truck, FDNY had Engine Company Firefighter Assist Teams.

This title was a problem.....nobody wants to be on the FAT Engine.

Not having a RIT is really substandard, and I think that not using one is an injustice to your men and also opening yourself up for a lawsuit.

Agreed, but not sending enough firefighters on any call is also substandard, but 95% of the departments don't meet any of the standards (NFPA, ISO, ICMA, etc.) This is an even bigger injustice and also opens one to litigation.

Not having enough members increases the chance of injury on all calls, not just working fires. I was out for 8 months after an on the job injury partially due to substandard manning on an EMS call. (FAST would not have helped, but manning would have).

Run cards worked fine for over 100 years

But, to get to the run card you need to do a proper interview of your caller

Run cards were used in the 1870's...no caller, just pull a lever and the alarm office or the house watchman did the rest.

Our bigger problem with CAD is when its not followed:

i.e. CAD says E2, E4, E1 and the dispatcher says E1, E2, E4

When responding from multiple stations the order tells us who is responsible for what fuction (1st due, 2nd due, etc.). A few dispatchers put it in numeric order even when the CAD has it correct.

What did we do before CAD ??????????

Run cards worked fine for over 100 years

Whatever they're called they should be consistent with National or State resource typing guidelines so everyone knows what the capabilities are and we advance our NIMS compliance.

Ok I'll Bite......Tanker #3

Under National typing is it a truck with water or an airplane?

Another issue is what "constitutes" a FAST team?

Last month TMFD requested an Engine from NRFD for FAST and shortly after arriving at the scene was "put to work".

Part of the reason for this is our engine companies perform as FAST (on report of a "working fire") the 4th due engine is automatically dispatched and assigned that roll.

But, our engines do not carry all of the equipment needed to be a FAST unit. Once on scene they have a list of needed iteams, they they will assemble in a common location (i.e. our engines do not carry a stokes, but every truck does). This works fine for us.

When operating on MA we are set up to perform as an Eng or truck and in TOM the IC put NR to work ad called for a VFD that was set up to be a MA FAST.

So stretching an additional line is a FAST operation so they're still performing their FAST responsibilities. Wouldn't it make sense that once that line is stretched and the immediate hazard is alleviated, the FAST members rotate out to another firefighting company so they can resume their FAST duties?

No, but if adding another line will improve the situation, thus making it safer for everyone its worth doing. Once they've done that they have used some air, they are not ready to be FAST again. Better to get a fresh team.

Aren't these supposed to be the "ESU" of the fire service (when a cop is in trouble they call ESU, when a FF is in trouble they call FAST)?

Not exactly. In my experiance the approach to FAST is different in career depts than in VFD's (this is not knocking on either). In most career depts. every unit is expected to perform as FAST and the FAST assignment is assiged based on location (i.e. 4th due Eng or 3rd due truck, etc.), if its in one end of town its one unit, another end of town, its a different unit. In most VFD's they do not have enough "interior" ff's to handle FAST at there own fires, they use MA to cover that.

Why is it that we so rarely see staging areas established let alone have an additional resource or two in staging?

Good Question. We should. Part of the problem is most depts are so short handed that they are calling 10 depts just to handle the fire ground without covering staging. They are unwilling to call for more to just "sit there"

The reason in Westchester MOST OFTEN (not always, but most often) you will hear a FAST going to work and another one brought in to releive them is simple... members standing around playing the role of a FAST may get bored or distratced after time and may not be paying as much attention to what is going on as they should. By calling in relief and putting these guys to work, a fresh team could very well be paying more attention then the guys that have been there in the cold or the Summer heat standing around and getting tired.

If they are bored, distracted, hot, cold, etc. maybe they should be sent to rehab or sent home. If bored.....should they be "rewarded"?

To me, as a potential IC, I want my FAST to be alert and on their toes

Good Point

.....you hear "FAST being put to work" and a new FAST team is requested. Isn't the FAST team an assigned resource? Aren't they there to insure the safety of the firefighters already working on the job and rescue them if they get into trouble? Why are they getting put to work instead of simply using additional companies in staging? Or is it that we don't routinely request additional resources to standby in staging?

Yes it is an assigned resource. FD's are required to have a plan as to who performs FAST prior to assigning a dedicated team (29CFR1910.134 & NFPA 1710). There are times when the best way to protect members is to put FAST to work (i.e. stretching another line may prevent extension trappig members) and request another team. In the meantime revert back to your FAST plan until the new FAST team is ready.

Rarely do you see additional units in staging.

I recall discussions in other threads about the use of FAST/RIT teams and how important they are. One point that jumps out at me was the issue of a new FAST team having to repeat all the work done by the FAST team that has been put to work. Doing a size-up, assessing and removing hazards, preparing equipment, etc.

So fire guys, educate this cop type guy!

The repeat should not be an issue. Size up is ongoing. Hazards that have been removed are no issue, but new crews may see missed hazards and much of the fast equipment remains the same.

Chris its a good thing your in aviation not K9....because you cant teach an old K9..............

With more and more departments actively using the Incident Command System, there are many jobs for many chiefs.

Personally, I have served in a number of different capacities on mutual aid, ranging from Staging to Accountability to Safety to Division Supervision, etc, based on the needs of the Incident Commander.

This is great, but I think the reason that some are questioning the response of multiple chiefs is because we still have many depts that dont use ICS (beyond the IC) and I've seen a number of MA incidents with dozens of chiefs and "Ex-Chiefs" hanging out, with no assignements. They appear to be there to be able to say they were there. If not functioning as an officer assigned to or by the IC, then they are just taking up space.

Your 100% correct. Also for the AG to go after them he has to look into "were they knowingly defrauding the departments?" In other words did they intend to deliver or did they know they could not meet the obligations? Fraud would probobly be the only thing they could get on the ELite execs.

Also hard for NYS AG to go after a corp in another state (even if it were still in existance). But the AG (or the comptroler) can go after the village administration if they violated NYS finance rules.

Ok, I guess if you have it pre planned for such use and it is available, wouldnt waste $$$ to go out and buy one just for surround and drown. the outcome is going to be the same with or without that rig. What am I looking at in the background, is that one or two guys on the end of that stick while it is flowing water???

Its intended to surround and drown fires in chemical plants & refineries, for them its worth the $$$$

Good eyes.....nice point.

trench rescue? how?

a) Fill the trench with 3,000 - 4,000 gpm and let the victim float to the surface

Fill the trench n with concrete and place a nice marker at the site.....rescue over.

Its a Schwing Boom, and they are available for fire service. Several industrial departments have ordered them.

They've been out in industrial brigades for over 15 years. The last NYS chiefs show at the Concord (early 1990's) had one. They can be set up to flow up to 4,000 gpm from the boom

I don't think Homeland Security should cough up any money because of Irvington's failure to include a purchase performance bond from the manufacturer, that subsequently went belly up. They (Lowey and Irvington) have some balls for even considering asking!

What kind of deal requires a 75 percent down CASH payment, anyway?

If they get screwed, c'est la vie,...so be it.

The Village "leaders" who signed the unusual contract should be held responsible for their OWN failures, NOT the United States Taxpayers- ie:YOU and ME! :angry:

I DO feel bad for the FD, because they're the ones out on a limb, now, it was supposed to be their new engine, after all.

I also feel bad that the FD has to be put out by this. Thanks JP for writing what happened to the FD in this.

I also agree that DHS should not have to pay. We have a fire act grant from DHS that requires us to have a performance bond and delivery time penalties inplace before we can use the DHS money.

Our finance people advised us that it has been against NYS finance law (I've asked for the citation, have yet to recieve it) for decades to place a down payment without financial protection.

Its great to see that the elected officials are willing to spend the additional $$$ to get another rig, but in a small tax base, this issue probably was worth about 4% of the last property tax increase. If it is proven that the finance law was broken, the administration person(s) responsible should have to pay for this disaster.

Good luck to IFD in getting thru this.