Does anyone Know? Bids on boat

[pd125 0]

With FID on the line and I see a request for bids for an "Enclosed Pilot House Motor Boat" with bids due on 12/15. Posted by Dutchess County in the Beacon Free Press anyone have an idea

[bfdexp 6]

If it is a county bid, I am sure it is a replacement for Enforcer 1 or 2. Their two sheriff motor boats...

With FID on the line and I see a request for bids for an "Enclosed Pilot House Motor Boat" with bids due on 12/15. Posted by Dutchess County in the Beacon Free Press anyone have an idea

[Doc 11]

You've gotta think like a politician to understand the fractured logic. You see, keeping DCSO writing tickets on the river brings in revenue. In the eyes of a drooling pork addicted politico, the FID only ever costs money. The actual service rendered to the community is not important. What will be important is which county politician will include: "Secured essential funds for the purchase of a terroristwarfighting boat for to guarantee security of freedom for American Patriots" on his/her reelection mailings, which will be sent using your money as well. We are entering a new era in government; ask not what your country can do for you, but what fees you can pay a politician to facilitate the collection of other fees from you. Presently, the cart is racing up hill miles ahead of the horse pulling it. Luckily the horse is long dead yet still being beaten with great enthusiasm and at the highest possible cost to you and me by the most expensive talent a national candidate search could secure.

Remember: "It's for the children" "The taxpayers deserve nothing less!"

Edited November 27, 2010 by Doc

[INIT915 1,119]

Are you arguing that the Sheriff's having a Marine Unit serves no other function, other then to write tickets? They don't respond to any other emergencies or play any other vital role?

[Doc 11]

Are you arguing that the Sheriff's having a Marine Unit serves no other function, other then to write tickets? They don't respond to any other emergencies or play any other vital role?

No. I'm pretty aware that Enforcer 1 and Enforcer 2 have been used for many other roles. Supporting the DCSO dive team, effecting water rescues and search / recovery operations, and patrolling the River and Whaley Lake, among other things.

I know that the Port Authority of NY/NJ is putting up the money for this better, more capable boat...

STORY ON THE BOAT

The Port Authority is ensuring that local resources exist to address incidents in its best interest; ie, commercial aircraft ditching in the river while inbound/outbound from Stewart. I don't blame Dutchess County government for jumping on $245,000 of free boat money (especially when our county legislators can tout this windfall as the result of THEIR hard work). However, it will cost Dutchess County taxpayers $60,000 plus the continual increased maintenance costs that come with this larger boat. I'm assuming that until the DCSO got this proposal / offer from the Port Authority that the existing DCSO boats were adequate for DCSO's regular needs that don't involve aircraft crashing in water. If they weren't adequate, then, yeah, my bad.

Now, I know this isn't an "either/or" "apples-to-apples" comparison - it's not a question of either getting the boat or keeping the ability to investigate fires - but it is representative of the difficult choices that need to be made when government is operating in the red. As a member of the emergency response community and a taxpayer, I have to wonder about the reasoning in the decisions being made by my elected officials using tax monies. What was the tipping point? What made one issue more critical than the other? Was it the Port Authority's "Free Money" (despite the implicit mandate of maintaining the boat on the taxpayer dime from now on) that helped the county somehow "find" $60,000 during these hard times? Could the legislature not "find" money for the Fire Investigation Division? My concern is that while Dutchess County is stepping up to serve the needs of an agency based in Orange County using taxpayer dollars, it is simultaneously abandoning another important service to its own taxpayers. Sure, this boat will provide an enhanced service to Dutchess taxpayers; I have no doubt that having a year-round marine presence on the river is a good thing. However, with all the talk of brutal budget cutting, having to go without, and the consequences to public safety and service that these measures bring, I find it unfortunate that our esteemed legislators could find $60,000 to go toward addressing a "what if" scenario posed by an out-of-county agency as opposed to maintaining the capability to adequately investigate fires and address arson on a regular and concerted basis. I'm guessing that these "assets forfeiture funds" used to pay for the boat have some interesting terms of use.

If there is something I'm missing, please, explain it.

[INIT915 1,119]

If there is something I'm missing, please, explain it.

Well, I have no experience with your FID, and I'm sure they are a necessity and do a good job, but I'm having trouble following your logic on the boat.

If a commercial airliner decides to ditch in the waters of Dutchess County, is it still an "out of county" problem? I'm pretty sure at that moment, it becomes a de facto Dutchess County problem. The airport may be in Orange, but the crash scene will be in Dutchess, no???

[16fire5 693]

Are you arguing that the Sheriff's having a Marine Unit serves no other function, other then to write tickets? They don't respond to any other emergencies or play any other vital role?

2 firefighters leave the dock in Newburgh to enjoy a weekday off fishing on the river. 3 LE boats visit them during their couple hour voyage to justify their existance but all they manage to do is scare the fish away. At least they could have reminded us to put our sunscreen on.

[INIT915 1,119]

2 firefighters leave the dock in Newburgh to enjoy a weekday off fishing on the river. 3 LE boats visit them during their couple hour voyage to justify their existance but all they manage to do is scare the fish away. At least they could have reminded us to put our sunscreen on.

So, your position is that you support the earlier posts, and feel they in fact have no other duties, expect to write tickets?

And never forget the sunscreen, Skin cancer is a killer!

[16fire5 693]

So, your position is that you support the earlier posts, and feel they in fact have no other duties, expect to write tickets?

And never forget the sunscreen, Skin cancer is a killer!

Don't put words in my mouth. We all know they have other duties, but when all these boats are staffed on weekdays, and the price of gas is high, there are hardly any vessels on the river and LE outnumbers the public. I'm stating that I believe there is enforcement overkill at times. In the same vain most weekends could use the high LE prescense.

[Doc 11]

Well, I have no experience with your FID, and I'm sure they are a necessity and do a good job, but I'm having trouble following your logic on the boat.

If a commercial airliner decides to ditch in the waters of Dutchess County, is it still an "out of county" problem? I'm pretty sure at that moment, it becomes a de facto Dutchess County problem. The airport may be in Orange, but the crash scene will be in Dutchess, no???

No doubt, if an aircraft ditches in the river, it will be a multi-jurisdictional response from both sides of the Hudson and existing resources will respond, albeit at an indefinite level of capability and efficacy, and after some unknown, possibly prolonged response time. The bigger boat will serve to ENHANCE that capability once it's staffed and operating. To what extent it will enhance the operation is unknown. If it's sitting unstaffed at a dock in New Hamburg, I suspect it will arrive at the scene at about the same time as all the other F.D. and police boats.

The Dutchess County Sheriff's Office has two boats that were, at least until the Port Authority offered a steep discount for a bigger better one, adequate and serviceable. There are fire department boats, coast guard boats, and state police boats in the area; in other words, there are additional services with capabilities to respond. They may not be ideal, or quick or capable of operating in any definable list of adverse conditions, but they exist and these details could be addressed by someone more knowledgeable than I. Unless there is other information available, it would seem that those resources have been able to meet the needs of the community for incidents on the Hudson River. Certainly a larger boat would be useful for many types of incidents and enhance the county's capabilities, however there are already existing capabilities.

The Dutchess County Fire Investigation Team is, for much of the county, a unique resource used at most structure fires in Dutchess County. While the responsibility for investigating the causes of fires lies with the fire chief, a shared service model provides an efficient means for for maintaining a group of highly trained, qualified individuals that could not otherwise be maintained by most individual fire departments. I can't say with any certainty what the response numbers are for the team, but I know my department alone has called on them twice in the last year with valuable outcomes. The FID's efforts are critical for identifying and prosecuting arson, including a recent serial arsonist. This seems to me to present a definite routine need that will now not be addressed. The FID provides expertise and capability not otherwise obtainable to much of the Dutchess County fire and law enforcement agencies. There is no backup; to compare to the DCSO boat scenario, it is as if no other boats would respond when that plane crashes in the river.

The amount of money being put forward by Dutchess County to buy this boat is, interestingly, approximately the amount normally budgeted to operate the Fire Investigation Division for a year. As of of now it has been cut from the budget. I am NOT insinuating a correlation here AT ALL. The budgeting for this boat and the FID are two separate, unrelated processes in two distinct county departments. The source of funding for the boat is from forfeited asset sales and likely has some specific limitations for usage prohibiting its use for offsetting DCSO budget shortfalls, or larger county fluidity issues. To me, though, it's interesting that the county can find money for a boat that enhances an existing capability, but cannot find money for the Fire Investigation Division to maintain the existence of any capability at all. See, the unavailability of the FID creates a vacuum of capability. The unavailability of this bigger boat means that smaller boats will respond. To me, this seems odd.

My logic is that planning for a 1/1,000,000 eventuality is great when you've already addressed the routine eventualities. When you aren't addressing routine eventualities, it seems unwise to address those "once-in-a-lifetime" incidents - unless there is some underlying priority. What is the priority?

[efdcapt115 1,511]

No doubt, if an aircraft ditches in the river, it will be a multi-jurisdictional response from both sides of the Hudson and existing resources will respond, albeit at an indefinite level of capability and efficacy, and after some unknown, possibly prolonged response time. The bigger boat will serve to ENHANCE that capability once it's staffed and operating. To what extent it will enhance the operation is unknown. If it's sitting unstaffed at a dock in New Hamburg, I suspect it will arrive at the scene at about the same time as all the other F.D. and police boats.

The Dutchess County Sheriff's Office has two boats that were, at least until the Port Authority offered a steep discount for a bigger better one, adequate and serviceable. There are fire department boats, coast guard boats, and state police boats in the area; in other words, there are additional services with capabilities to respond. They may not be ideal, or quick or capable of operating in any definable list of adverse conditions, but they exist and these details could be addressed by someone more knowledgeable than I. Unless there is other information available, it would seem that those resources have been able to meet the needs of the community for incidents on the Hudson River. Certainly a larger boat would be useful for many types of incidents and enhance the county's capabilities, however there are already existing capabilities.

The Dutchess County Fire Investigation Team is, for much of the county, a unique resource used at most structure fires in Dutchess County. While the responsibility for investigating the causes of fires lies with the fire chief, a shared service model provides an efficient means for for maintaining a group of highly trained, qualified individuals that could not otherwise be maintained by most individual fire departments. I can't say with any certainty what the response numbers are for the team, but I know my department alone has called on them twice in the last year with valuable outcomes. The FID's efforts are critical for identifying and prosecuting arson, including a recent serial arsonist. This seems to me to present a definite routine need that will now not be addressed. The FID provides expertise and capability not otherwise obtainable to much of the Dutchess County fire and law enforcement agencies. There is no backup; to compare to the DCSO boat scenario, it is as if no other boats would respond when that plane crashes in the river.

The amount of money being put forward by Dutchess County to buy this boat is, interestingly, approximately the amount normally budgeted to operate the Fire Investigation Division for a year. As of of now it has been cut from the budget. I am NOT insinuating a correlation here AT ALL. The budgeting for this boat and the FID are two separate, unrelated processes in two distinct county departments. The source of funding for the boat is from forfeited asset sales and likely has some specific limitations for usage prohibiting its use for offsetting DCSO budget shortfalls, or larger county fluidity issues. To me, though, it's interesting that the county can find money for a boat that enhances an existing capability, but cannot find money for the Fire Investigation Division to maintain the existence of any capability at all. See, the unavailability of the FID creates a vacuum of capability. The unavailability of this bigger boat means that smaller boats will respond. To me, this seems odd.

My logic is that planning for a 1/1,000,000 eventuality is great when you've already addressed the routine eventualities. When you aren't addressing routine eventualities, it seems unwise to address those "once-in-a-lifetime" incidents - unless there is some underlying priority. What is the priority?

I totally understand what you are saying with regard to the FID. It is an invaluable resource, apparently shared by all the FDs within the county. Funding for this unit should never have been in question. The fact that it has been apparently eliminated is truly wrong.

But I have to say, the boat argument just doesn't fit in with the FID issue. Looking at it from the outside, I read the link posted about the boat. The Port Authority for some reason wants to bolster the Sheriff's boat capability, and they are giving them some money to accomplish that. The other money is forfeiture money, probably from drug asset seizures.

Once the purchase is completed, what has changed? The sheriff still has a boat, just a newer larger one that they will use for patrol. The staffing of the boat is where most of the budgeted money from the sheriffs department will go toward. So I ask again, what has changed besides the size of the boat? Nothing really.

I'm confident in writing this that there are laws about what and where they can use those seized funds from; and more than likely it can't be used to fund the FID.

When all is said and done, the boat purchase has virtually no effect on the budget of the sheriff, or the lack of funding for the FID.

Just a suggestion; but the county should be writing a 2010 AFG grant to try and get funding for the FID restored.

[64FFMJK 21]

Lets also not forget that the DCSO is LAYING OFF 6 Deputies and 6 Corrections officers per the POJO news.

Maybe if DC911 was willing to look at different options they could find the necessary cash to keep the FID even if its not at 50K a year. They could have a yard sale and sell off some chairs that have been in the paper lately

[Doc 11]

I totally understand what you are saying with regard to the FID. It is an invaluable resource, apparently shared by all the FDs within the county. Funding for this unit should never have been in question. The fact that it has been apparently eliminated is truly wrong.

But I have to say, the boat argument just doesn't fit in with the FID issue. Looking at it from the outside, I read the link posted about the boat. The Port Authority for some reason wants to bolster the Sheriff's boat capability, and they are giving them some money to accomplish that. The other money is forfeiture money, probably from drug asset seizures.

Once the purchase is completed, what has changed? The sheriff still has a boat, just a newer larger one that they will use for patrol. The staffing of the boat is where most of the budgeted money from the sheriffs department will go toward. So I ask again, what has changed besides the size of the boat? Nothing really.

I'm confident in writing this that there are laws about what and where they can use those seized funds from; and more than likely it can't be used to fund the FID.

When all is said and done, the boat purchase has virtually no effect on the budget of the sheriff, or the lack of funding for the FID.

Just a suggestion; but the county should be writing a 2010 AFG grant to try and get funding for the FID restored.

I agree, the county should be making efforts to find money through the AFG program and I'd say even the NYS government efficiency grants, seeing as the Investigation Division is a shared service over many municipalities and fits nicely with the programs aim to make (or keep?) government services efficient and shared.

As I've been researching this boat acquisition, I've been seeing the sound logic in its purchase. It certainly won't hurt anything. It is going to be a great resource for the county and everyone who uses the river, and I'm not knocking it at all. Having an all-weather, year round marine presence on the river is essential for MANY purposes. I do agree that the county would have been crazy to not find a way to make this happen... however I also think there's a bit of crazy that the FID is hanging in the wind and talk of its getting cut is as serious as it is. It should never have gotten this far. I'm going to assume that there are yet to be revealed efforts to find the funding and I'm definitely going to support those. Now is NOT the time to be reducing arson investigation capabilities... or Sheriff road patrols or the ability to address emergencies in the river or any facet of public safety. Economic down times are when houses burn, crime spikes and people stop taking care of themselves. There is plenty of dead weight and waste elsewhere... looking specifically at the county legislative chambers and the County Executive's office. I wonder how their furloughs and pay cuts are doing (yeah, right). A chair sale is DEFINITELY in order. With all the press those things got, they're like celebrities!!!

Edited November 28, 2010 by Doc

[helicopper 1,050]

Just a couple of points - the Sheriff's marine unit does much more than write tickets on the water. The boat being acquired is not coming from tax funds, it is coming from grant funds and/or the Port Authority (as someone aptly noted). The Sheriff's Office and Department of Emergency Response have different budgets submitted by different entities so the Sheriff can budget for a boat while at the same time reducing his personnel (right, wrong, or indifferent). The DER chose to sacrifice their FID in their budget submission, perhaps in the hopes that the public outcry would be enough to have it restored, who knows?

It is not appropriate to compare capital acquisitions in one department to operating expenses in another especially when both are overseen by different elected entities (CE and Sheriff).

2 firefighters leave the dock in Newburgh to enjoy a weekday off fishing on the river. 3 LE boats visit them during their couple hour voyage to justify their existance but all they manage to do is scare the fish away. At least they could have reminded us to put our sunscreen on.

To justify their existence? Remarks like this are inflammatory and only demean our brothers and sisters who were doing their jobs. Perhaps you'd be interested in knowing that the US Coast Guard and New York State coordinated several week long high visibility patrols on the river intended to promote safety, increase voluntary compliance with rules and regulations, and interdict criminal activity on the water. Sounds like your FF buddies were caught up in one of those details.

Finally, a boat such as this one will be very useful in emergency responses up and down the river. We shouldn't oppose this because we're unhappy with other legislative action (the FID cuts). Fight the FID cuts; don't fight the Sheriff's Office promoting its operation.

[16fire5 693]

Sorry for hijacking this thread but I feel the need to respond.

To justify their existence? Remarks like this are inflammatory and only demean our brothers and sisters who were doing their jobs.

They are not inflamatory. When we spoke candidly with the officers and asked why 3 seperate LE boats had visited us that's exactly what they told us.

Perhaps you'd be interested in knowing that the US Coast Guard and New York State coordinated several week long high visibility patrols on the river intended to promote safety, increase voluntary compliance with rules and regulations, and interdict criminal activity on the water.

When your visited 3 times in 3 hours i feel it's over kill. Imagine getting pulled over 3 times in 3 hours with no probable cause. No beers, all required equipment and both of us have the 16 hour coast guard course. Maybe my experience was was the extreme but that's not the feedback I've recieved from other boaters.

Edited November 28, 2010 by 16fire5

[helicopper 1,050]

Sorry for hijacking this thread but I feel the need to respond.

They are not inflamatory. When we spoke candidly with the officers and asked why 3 seperate LE boats had visited us that's exactly what they told us.

When your visited 3 times in 3 hours i feel it's over kill. Imagine getting pulled over 3 times in 3 hours with no probable cause. No beers, all required equipment and both of us have the 16 hour coast guard course. Maybe my experience was was the extreme but that's not the feedback I've recieved from other boaters.

If they told you they were just trying to justify their existance then they did themselves and the rest of us a great disservice and grossly under-explained why those checks are being done.

As for the probable cause, the right to conduct a safety inspection (which is what we're talking about here) is reserved by the Coast Guard and designated law enforcement personnel for any vessel on the water so let's not start down that road, please.

Overkill is a matter of perspective. We can go round and round with many issues and cast the "overkill" stone. If it were not part of a bigger strategy to insure the safety of those on the Hudson I might agree that being checked three times in 3 hours is alot but given the nature of traffic on the river, it can happen.