Larchmont mayor's house fire raised response issues

[ex-commish 490]

The bottom line is the village board who is the AHD decided to hire someone to run THIER department. The same holds for a fire district. They are responsible to the people to make sure things are running smooth, not the members. This is why I am against elections of officers. You have people voting on who they like or who they are told to vote for rather than who may be best suited for the job. The board said we want a paid chief and wether any board wishes to appoint any officer wether salaried or not should be the decision of the board, not people who in many cases are not experienced enough to judge who is capable to lead them. I have recieved flack in the past on this issue but I truly feel it is time to revamp the selection process of leaders and appoint people based on experience, training, maturity and the ability to manage and train people.

[RichC 0]

First of all, I could care less how many vollies quit because of this. I am only trying to figure out if this whole situation is costing or will cost the taxpayers more money and was it reaaly the best decision for the Village of Larchmont? Was it really worth the lawyers fees, raise in salary, possilbe staff increases to have a chief who is now an employee instead or someone who was donating his time? If it took the chief 20 minutes to arrive at a fire scene, where does he live? Shoudnt he be required to live relatively close to town?

Maybe take a look at the previous fire LFD had which I think was last Spring on Mayhew ave. Came in on weekday morning at about the same time as this one which came in on a holiday. Based on that yes, Larchmont could be looking at some increasing costs. TL2131, these are valid questions you bring up that the taxpayers of Larchmont need to look at.

[TimesUp 148]

I'm not looking to start anything, and also nice job by LFD, NRFD, VMFD, but the call didn't come in until 6:36 am, The fire Chief didn't come on scene until 720, this was a 2nd alarm I belive ( please correct me if I'm worng) the fire was place under control three minutes later once the Fire Chief came on scene, and the IC was doing one heck of a job as well as helping put out the fire. Which brings up the question. Where was the Fire Chief that whole 44mins? Did he know that there was a fire going on? Did he know it was his Bosses house? Why was the IC helping put out the fire. I thought the IC must to look at the "Big Picture" not focusing on the line and working it. This is some things that I thought we could learn from.

Your answer is in an earlier post. There was a delay due to the pd having the wrong info. Good job LFD.

Edited January 5, 2008 by ltrob

[TL2L31 8]

Maybe take a look at the previous fire LFD had which I think was last Spring on Mayhew ave. Came in on weekday morning at about the same time as this one which came in on a holiday. Based on that yes, Larchmont could be looking at some increasing costs. TL2131, these are valid questions you bring up that the taxpayers of Larchmont need to look at.

Just looking at it from the view of a taxpayer, which we all are whether you are career or volunteer member. Stop for a moment and think. The residents of towns that have 100% volunteer depatments are saving the taxpayers a fortune. Think about how much money they are saving you, the taxpayer. Look at the Village of Rye Brook. They wanted their own firehouse, manpower and rigs. They spent millions of dollars and they only work a 7am to 7pm shift. Imagine how much it would additionally cost them to run a 24hr fully paid department.

[jd783 64]

To the poster above If your house was on fire,with your family inside would you be thinking of how much money the Vol Dept was saving the taxpayers. Having paid firefighters in the fire house 24/7 is the best possible protection.That being said not all towns can afford to pay full time firefighters this I understand. Most firefighters paid and Vol have to remember the fire dept was there when they came and it will be there when they leave,you dont like the chief that the mayor appointed QUIT,like I said the fire dept will still be there Remember we are all just passing through

[Bnechis 3,961]

Just looking at it from the view of a taxpayer, which we all are whether you are career or volunteer member. Stop for a moment and think. The residents of towns that have 100% volunteer depatments are saving the taxpayers a fortune. Think about how much money they are saving you, the taxpayer. Look at the Village of Rye Brook. They wanted their own firehouse, manpower and rigs. They spent millions of dollars and they only work a 7am to 7pm shift. Imagine how much it would additionally cost them to run a 24hr fully paid department.

Just because you have 100% volunteers does not mean you are saving money. This is the biggest misconception in the fire service. While it is possible you are saving money you need to look at all the facts.

1) The cost of fire prevention.

Most people consider the FD Budget the cost of Fire Prevention. THe real costs include:

Water supply - If you have a municipal system, the cost is in the 100's of millions.

Insurance - My estimates of premiums in my community is 35% more than FD Budget, not including renters insurance and stock/merchandise insurance.

Construction - Non combustible construction cost more, but reduces your insurance

FD Cost - is less than the 3 above (even in full paid depts)

Sprinklers - cost more, but reduces your insurance

Code Enforcement - Communities with high quality C.E. have fewer fires.

Fire Prevention Activities - cost time/money to provide.

2) ISO concepts.

3 on call ff's = 1 on-duty ff (in house)

minimum response required by ISO for dept with no on-duty FF's is 36ff's & 1 IC. For on duty its 12 & 1.

How many of the VFD's in this area get 36+1 on every report of a structure fire (not on the 2nd alarm)?

These numbers mean that to keep our ISO level (2) we use 168 career FF's (had 160 when we got it), but if we were vol we would need at least 500 volunteers.

3) FD Costs

Cost is based budget and size of Tax Base. When newsday came out with the cost factors we saw that many of the taxpayers there were paying more for vfd's than our home owners, and we give them a big cost savings on insurance.

If you have a VFD with about 12,000 residence and your budget is over $1 million and your ISO rating is 5 or higher your residence pay more (per resident) for fire protection than my 100% career dept.

For every $1 million we spend we save $10+ million in premiums.

Also how many VFD's have LOSAP's? Do they work? What are the costs? And are they properly funded? The State Comptroler says many are under funded by millions. This is tax money that will have to be raised to pay the bill. but it will have to be raise 10-20 yrs from now and those costs are to pay for services today not when the bill comes due. If the depts hire personnel, they will still have to raise this money to pay for volunteers who are retired.

For the record

I am not against volunteers. I was one, I still work with them, and they have a major roll to play, and yes they can save a community money, but just because they are volunteering, does not mean the dept is saving the community money. The ISO rating system is over 100 yrs old and was started before most career depts. 3 VFD's in this country are ISO 1's (the best rating) so it can be done, but almost 15,000 of the 43,000 depts in the US are ISO 9/10 (the worst rating).

At my last count 25 of the 58 departments in Westchester were ISO 9 or partial 9.

[llm60 0]

I PRAY FOR THE DAY THAT WE CAN ALL JUST GET ALONG PAT EACH OTHER ON THE BACK AND SAY GOOD JOB!!!

[FirNaTine 370]

I like how many think they're saving a bundle because they have an all Volunteer FD, but will go out and spend millions on apparatus, equipment and even the construction of a brand spanken new Station, like the new 6 bay monstrosity in Mahopac. One has to ask themself, are these things really needed or are we purchasing and building these items for an ego boost and to possibly win a trophy at the next parade. I'd rather see the monies spent at hiring a full time Career force, even if it means starting out with just paid Chauffers if that's all the municipality can afford. I'm sure a quicker response, especially in areas with a lack of hydrants would benefit everyone involved, especially the poor sole who's house is burning. Think about it Nothern Westchester, you could get those tankers on the road even quicker without having to put out multiple tones for manpower. I'm sure as a result there'd be alot less surround and drowns.

Edited January 6, 2008 by FirNaTine

[Guest alsfirefighter]

if a village board somewhere tried to take away a career chief position and replace it with a vollie spot you can BET there would be union actions that would certainly include lawsuits. I think coming down on the vollie leadership for fighting for a position is living in a glass house and throwing stones.

And I'm thinking that while your right, any union would do what is in their power and ability to fight such an action, including a lawsuit if it was able to be done after all that is what we all pay dues to the unions those of us are members of.....all the other career staff wouldn't pick up, quit and run to another department.