Update on Stamford Merger

[FFPCogs 863]

Thirdly, can you explain the sentence your encitement of Sec. 7-301 that you colorized related to ...Such town may, at any meeting specially warned for the purpose, make appropriations and lay taxes for the support thereof; but this section shall not be operative within the limits of any city, borough or incorporated fire district which has an established fire department. I read this to mean that if a town, city etc. which is the City of Stamford already has a fire department.

T, I noticed that I was remiss in addressing this question. My apologies.

As to the colorized text, I take it to mean that no FD, District or municipal administration can arbitrarily change the status quo of a towns fire protection without the consent of all parties concerned. In other words the strong arm tactics of the previous administration and any attempts to continue them are illegal since each district, for better or worse, is an incorporated fire district which has an established fire department.

The VFD consolidation process which has begun here, no matter how unpopular or unpalatable, does at least take this into account.

Cogs

[TRex 9]

T, I noticed that I was remiss in addressing this question. My apologies.

As to the colorized text, I take it to mean that no FD, District or municipal administration can arbitrarily change the status quo of a towns fire protection without the consent of all parties concerned. In other words the strong arm tactics of the previous administration and any attempts to continue them are illegal since each district, for better or worse, is an incorporated fire district which has an established fire department.

The VFD consolidation process which has begun here, no matter how unpopular or unpalatable, does at least take this into account.

Cogs

You've got me there. Again, I am not going to attempt to interpret law, but every law is written with some kind of intent. I do not know the intent of this one. However, to sum up the argument, and not to mention what has already been stated in these 46 pages of comment the following points are presented;

Fire fighters are paid to ensure that some kind of fire fighting force responds.

In general, Tax payers care about one thing when it comes to their fire service, What is the bottom line?

and will some one come when I dial 911? They don't care what color the fire trucks are, how many are on it, or who is paid and who is not

I do think however, the tax payer may be a little more interested in how the legal fees that were incurred by LRFCO, nd TRFD were or are being paid. Did they take up a collection or are they using donated money, or city funds? I am amazed that the books having been looked at.

Lastly, a City the size of Stamford responding to over 11, 000 responces by the FD in total certainly can not be protected by an all volunteer force. I think we can all agree on that. Belltown, as I have said, seems to be able to cover their 1.5 square miles adequately, for now. A combination department may be the answer depending on the amount of reliance placed on which combination, mostly volunteer (which we know did not work), or mostly paid. When you start putting up multi million dollar buildings now exceeding 25 stories, my training and experience suggests to me that a combination system even heavily reliant on career staff is not adequate to address fires in these structures.

No matter what type of force ultimately is decided upon, there is one paramount issue. It all needs to be under one command, one set of SOG's, one chain, one standard. The city was divided between two communities prior to the 50's until back then, they figured it was better to consolidate, except of course the fire departments who remained seperate. It does not seem very different today except that there are not enough volunteers to continue. Even with the Mayors plan, the remaining Big 5 are still going to have to give up their autonomy. Otherwise you have consolidated nothing. At least if a harmonious accord between SFRD and the individual fire companies north were met, some identification of their individualities and "esprit de corps" could have been maintained. Instead, you have to erase the slate, and start new with a combined assets and resources committment by all the players to the NEW STAMFORD VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT. There will only be ONE CHIEF for it and command structrue, not 5.

The leaders that are fighting for this make no mistake about it, are fighting not for the system and everyone else, but for themselves, all with one thing in mind, that being they think they are going to be the CHief, ASST. Chief President, Grand EXALTED Ruler, what ever. I heard that P. Sasser, applied for the Director of Health and Safety, but was told, "I have another plan for you. Chief of the new Stamford Volunteer Fire Department." Its the same when the career guys in the vols. were against consolidation. What, have a boss? Share all the OT? Actually fight fires? Are you kidding?

This is no different. Hope you weren't thinking of possibly being considered for a top job in the new Volunteer FD up north?

One last tid bit of info. The entry exam results may be released soon. Where do you think the city will hire the new personnel for up north? Do you know what it costs to develop a hiring list and get people reay to hit the floor? Do you think the City realy cares about protecting the volunteer spirit in Stamford?

WAKE UP.

Edited November 17, 2010 by TRex

[FFPCogs 863]

You've got me there. Again, I am not going to attempt to interpret law, but every law is written with some kind of intent. I do not know the intent of this one. However, to sum up the argument, and not to mention what has already been stated in these 46 pages of comment the following points are presented;

Fire fighters are paid to ensure that some kind of fire fighting force responds.

In general, Tax payers care about one thing when it comes to their fire service, What is the bottom line?

and will some one come when I dial 911? They don't care what color the fire trucks are, how many are on it, or who is paid and who is not

I do think however, the tax payer may be a little more interested in how the legal fees that were incurred by LRFCO, nd TRFD were or are being paid. Did they take up a collection or are they using donated money, or city funds? I am amazed that the books having been looked at.

Lastly, a City the size of Stamford responding to over 11, 000 responces by the FD in total certainly can not be protected by an all volunteer force. I think we can all agree on that. Belltown, as I have said, seems to be able to cover their 1.5 square miles adequately, for now. A combination department may be the answer depending on the amount of reliance placed on which combination, mostly volunteer (which we know did not work), or mostly paid. When you start putting up multi million dollar buildings now exceeding 25 stories, my training and experience suggests to me that a combination system even heavily reliant on career staff is not adequate to address fires in these structures.

No matter what type of force ultimately is decided upon, there is one paramount issue. It all needs to be under one command, one set of SOG's, one chain, one standard. The city was divided between two communities prior to the 50's until back then, they figured it was better to consolidate, except of course the fire departments who remained seperate. It does not seem very different today except that there are not enough volunteers to continue. Even with the Mayors plan, the remaining Big 5 are still going to have to give up their autonomy. Otherwise you have consolidated nothing. At least if a harmonious accord between SFRD and the individual fire companies north were met, some identification of their individualities and "esprit de corps" could have been maintained. Instead, you have to erase the slate, and start new with a combined assets and resources committment by all the players to the NEW STAMFORD VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT. There will only be ONE CHIEF for it and command structrue, not 5.

The leaders that are fighting for this make no mistake about it, are fighting not for the system and everyone else, but for themselves, all with one thing in mind, that being they think they are going to be the CHief, ASST. Chief President, Grand EXALTED Ruler, what ever. I heard that P. Sasser, applied for the Director of Health and Safety, but was told, "I have another plan for you. Chief of the new Stamford Volunteer Fire Department." Its the same when the career guys in the vols. were against consolidation. What, have a boss? Share all the OT? Actually fight fires? Are you kidding?

This is no different. Hope you weren't thinking of possibly being considered for a top job in the new Volunteer FD up north?

One last tid bit of info. The entry exam results may be released soon. Where do you think the city will hire the new personnel for up north? Do you know what it costs to develop a hiring list and get people reay to hit the floor? Do you think the City realy cares about protecting the volunteer spirit in Stamford?

WAKE UP.

Your concern for my state of awareness is touching but misplaced. I am fully aware of what has and what is going on here and even share many of the reservations presented on these 46 pages of comment. That being said, I remain confident that an alternative exists which may yet emerge that takes the public into account first, not as a secondary to any of the other agendas at work here. And make no mistake, no one " side " in this debacle has a monopoly on those agendas.

You can also rest assured Rexy, I have no illusions about being considered for any of the jobs which may emerge with this new FD, let alone a top one.

Cogs

[pjreilly 6]

You can also rest assured Rexy, I have no illusions about being considered for any of the jobs which may emerge with this new FD, let alone a top one.

Cogs

You may want to check back a few pages Cogs. Remember when you were beaten to a pulp by the people commenting on this board about you taking the paid position in the New SVFD at the expense of a union member. WELL WHICH IS IT?

[FFPCogs 863]

You can also rest assured Rexy, I have no illusions about being considered for any of the jobs which may emerge with this new FD, let alone a top one.

Cogs.

You may want to check back a few pages Cogs. Remember when you were beaten to a pulp by the people commenting on this board about you taking the paid position in the New SVFD at the expense of a union member. WELL WHICH IS IT?

No need to look back PJ, I am fortunate in that I have an excellent memory in such matters. I know full well what I stated, so even though I would take a job were it to be offered, I highly doubt that that consideration would even be considered. C'est la vie

Cogs

[TRex 9]

No need to look back PJ, I am fortunate in that I have an excellent memory in such matters. I know full well what I stated, so even though I would take a job were it to be offered, I highly doubt that that consideration would even be considered. C'est la vie

Cogs

Thanks for watching my back pj. I thought I read that he would be interested if the opportunity presented itself. As far as the top position (if it were to happen) I think may be given to the individual who was seen driving around in the unused Dierector's vehicle a few months agoe.

[TRex 9]

Answer me this question. What is the real motivation of the principle players in ToR for wanting this plan to go through when motions are being made to change department constitution dealing with dissolution of their corporation? Particular attention to discussion centered on the reasonable and honorable disbursement of all TRFD assets in the event the corporation is dissolved. Hmmm! $4 million, $5 million divided by how many members equals ???

[FFPCogs 863]

Answer me this question. What is the real motivation of the principle players in ToR for wanting this plan to go through when motions are being made to change department constitution dealing with dissolution of their corporation? Particular attention to discussion centered on the reasonable and honorable disbursement of all TRFD assets in the event the corporation is dissolved. Hmmm! $4 million, $5 million divided by how many members equals ???

So now TRFD or maybe all the VFDs are motivated to consolidate by the prospect of personal monetary gain by some or all of their memberships huh? You can of course site the proof of these discussions that led you to concoct this theory, such as the names of those present, dates and places where they took place and how it is that you came to be aware of them...right??

[TRex 9]

So now TRFD or maybe all the VFDs are motivated to consolidate by the prospect of personal monetary gain by some or all of their memberships huh? You can of course site the proof of these discussions that led you to concoct this theory, such as the names of those present, dates and places where they took place and how it is that you came to be aware of them...right??

Come on now Cogs. I would hope you by now would know me better than that. Of course I do. Minutes of a meeting to which I have copies of. Names, motion maker, person who seconded. In fact some of the post is directly from the document. Do not be surprised if you do not see a FYI filed. I am holding on to it at the correct moment, at which time I will give it to the approriate people. As a matter of fact I was able to get a copy so easily, I know there are others with it as well.

As I said in the past. This is not about whether or not career or volunteer or a combination of either could do it better, or cheaper. It is about self serving principle players in this and the city using this as a vehicle to satisfy their own new agenda. Geppetto said it, ..meet the new boss.

Did you take the last SFRD hiring test a few months back? I hope so.

[FFPCogs 863]

Come on now Cogs. I would hope you by now would know me better than that. Of course I do. Minutes of a meeting to which I have copies of. Names, motion maker, person who seconded. In fact some of the post is directly from the document. Do not be surprised if you do not see a FYI filed. I am holding on to it at the correct moment, at which time I will give it to the approriate people. As a matter of fact I was able to get a copy so easily, I know there are others with it as well.

Yes T I do indeed know you better than that. Your answer is just what I expected it to be, and it speaks volumes...thanks. I'm looking forward to the moment that document moves on to the appropriate people.

As I said in the past. This is not about whether or not career or volunteer or a combination of either could do it better, or cheaper. It is about self serving principle players in this and the city using this as a vehicle to satisfy their own new agenda. Geppetto said it, ..meet the new boss.

You know what I couldn't agree more. This has always been about the self serving principle player's agendas and the City putting them at odds to set their own. It really is a shame that the public's welfare is the last item on most of them.

Did you take the last SFRD hiring test a few months back? I hope so.

Nah, although I would relish the opportunity to work with you, I couldn't afford the pay cut...

Cogs

[Geppetto 31]

Mayor unveils costs for proposed fire department merger

Jeff Morganteen

Stamford Advocate

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

STAMFORD -- City lawmakers on Wednesday night received the long-awaited financial details of Mayor Michael Pavia's plan to merge four of the city's five volunteer fire departments into a single fire company, a broad proposal announced nearly six months ago following weeks of meetings by a task force the mayor appointed.

The new department will cost $8.2 million in its first year -- $6.7 million of which goes toward hiring 58 paid personnel, including a full-time chief and fire marshals -- and will be funded by a special service taxing district, according to an 23-page packet given to city legislators during a meeting Wednesday night with the Public Safety and Health Committee of the Board of Representatives....

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Mayor-unveils-costs-for-proposed-fire-department-852363.php

[Geppetto 31]

From the Board of Reps Website -

http://boardofreps.org/committees/publicsafety/2010/items/ps28011/ps28011_plan_101201.pdf

[FD828 77]

I wonder where the mayor/Larobina came up with the statement that if the volunteer companies were to disban the SFRD would have to hire 117 new firefighters which would increase the budget by 48%?? When the Asst. Chief of the SFRD gave him a ZERO cost plan to cover the WHOLE city!!! How is it that the new SVFD would only need 58 new firefighters but the SFRD would need 117??? I guess they don't remember that SFRD already is covering with Engines 7, 8, and 9! More miss-information...great job mr. Mayor or should we say Mike Larobina... who is really running city hall these days?

Edited December 2, 2010 by FD828

[Geppetto 31]

Stamford Patch Article

Mayor’s Updated Fire Plan Outlines Implementation Costs

Board of Reps' Public Safety and Health Committee will meet later this month or January after reviewing the plan.

12/2/10

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/mayors-updated-fire-plan-outlines-implementation-costs

[TRex 9]

Stamford Patch Article

Mayor’s Updated Fire Plan Outlines Implementation Costs

Board of Reps' Public Safety and Health Committee will meet later this month or January after reviewing the plan.

12/2/10

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/mayors-updated-fire-plan-outlines-implementation-costs

Lets all just calm down. Again this is a THEORETICAL proposal. Practically speaking I believe the plan will collapse. They can institute easily by not making a taxing district and rather charge a service fee like the WPCA etc. But what the residents need to be aware of is that user fees are not tax deductable like real estate taxes. I also think that the IRS for both the Fed and the State should be made aware of assets being redistributed and have them ensure that the redistribution of values go to the NON PROFIT taking over the protection. I think some questions along those lines should also be put forward.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Lets all just calm down. Again this is a THEORETICAL proposal. Practically speaking I believe the plan will collapse. They can institute easily by not making a taxing district and rather charge a service fee like the WPCA etc. But what the residents need to be aware of is that user fees are not tax deductable like real estate taxes. I also think that the IRS for both the Fed and the State should be made aware of assets being redistributed and have them ensure that the redistribution of values go to the NON PROFIT taking over the protection. I think some questions along those lines should also be put forward.

What assets are you talking about that will be redistributed? Is it the volunteer company benevolent money? They've got to have millions of dollars in there. Do they collect the 2% money like the companies do in New York? Much of the volunteer benevolent money around sits unused because of the restrictions on what they can use it to pay out for. Death benefits, period.

The sad part of that is volunteer organizations that are away from controversies like Stamford, could use 2% money to outfit their firefighters and such; but the restrictions on how they can pay that money out prohibit it. Do I have that right?

Edit: On second thought, can't they use the benevolent money to pay for LOSAPs?

Edited December 3, 2010 by efdcapt115

[FFPCogs 863]

Lets all just calm down. Again this is a THEORETICAL proposal. Practically speaking I believe the plan will collapse. They can institute easily by not making a taxing district and rather charge a service fee like the WPCA etc. But what the residents need to be aware of is that user fees are not tax deductable like real estate taxes. I also think that the IRS for both the Fed and the State should be made aware of assets being redistributed and have them ensure that the redistribution of values go to the NON PROFIT taking over the protection. I think some questions along those lines should also be put forward.

T,

Much to my suprise and maybe that of others as well I find myself agreeing with almost all of what you've stated. It is indeed time to calm down and evaluate the proposal for what it is and build on it's merits.

And I couldn't agree more that any redistribution of the assets belonging to the VFDs shouid go to the NON PROFIT taking over the protection.

Will wonders never cease...

Cogs.

[CTFF 65]

T,

Much to my suprise and maybe that of others as well I find myself agreeing with almost all of what you've stated. It is indeed time to calm down and evaluate the proposal for what it is and build on it's merits.

And I couldn't agree more that any redistribution of the assets belonging to the VFDs shouid go to the NON PROFIT taking over the protection.

Will wonders never cease...

Cogs.

It seems the CT general statues cover this topic already.

Sec. 7-329. Termination of district. Whenever the officers of such district vote to terminate its corporate existence and whenever a petition signed by ten per cent of the total number of persons qualified to vote in the meeting of such district or twenty of the voters of such district, whichever is less, applying for a special meeting to vote on the termination of the district is received by the clerk, the clerk shall call a special meeting of the voters residing within such district, the notice of which shall be signed by the officers thereof, by advertising the same in the same manner as is provided in section 7-325. Not later than twenty-four hours before any such meeting, two hundred or more voters or ten per cent of the total number of voters, whichever is less, may petition the clerk of the district, in writing, that a referendum on the question of whether the district should be terminated be held in the manner provided in section 7-327. If, at such meeting, a two-thirds majority of the voters present vote to terminate the corporate existence of the district, or, if a referendum is held, two-thirds of the voters casting votes in such referendum vote to terminate the corporate existence of the district, the officers shall proceed to terminate the affairs of such district. The district shall pay all outstanding indebtedness and turn over the balance of the assets of such district to the town in which the district is located, if the legislative body of the town authorizes such action. No district shall be terminated under this section until all of its outstanding indebtedness is paid unless the legislative body of the town in which the district is located agrees in writing to assume such indebtedness. On completion of the duties of the officers of such district, the clerk shall cause a certificate of the vote of such meeting to be recorded in the land records of the town in which the district is located and the clerk shall notify the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management.

[TRex 9]

It seems the CT general statues cover this topic already.

Sec. 7-329. Termination of district. Whenever the officers of such district vote to terminate its corporate existence and whenever a petition signed by ten per cent of the total number of persons qualified to vote in the meeting of such district or twenty of the voters of such district, whichever is less, applying for a special meeting to vote on the termination of the district is received by the clerk, the clerk shall call a special meeting of the voters residing within such district, the notice of which shall be signed by the officers thereof, by advertising the same in the same manner as is provided in section 7-325. Not later than twenty-four hours before any such meeting, two hundred or more voters or ten per cent of the total number of voters, whichever is less, may petition the clerk of the district, in writing, that a referendum on the question of whether the district should be terminated be held in the manner provided in section 7-327. If, at such meeting, a two-thirds majority of the voters present vote to terminate the corporate existence of the district, or, if a referendum is held, two-thirds of the voters casting votes in such referendum vote to terminate the corporate existence of the district, the officers shall proceed to terminate the affairs of such district. The district shall pay all outstanding indebtedness and turn over the balance of the assets of such district to the town in which the district is located, if the legislative body of the town authorizes such action. No district shall be terminated under this section until all of its outstanding indebtedness is paid unless the legislative body of the town in which the district is located agrees in writing to assume such indebtedness. On completion of the duties of the officers of such district, the clerk shall cause a certificate of the vote of such meeting to be recorded in the land records of the town in which the district is located and the clerk shall notify the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management.

Very interesting read. I find it hard to believe that Mr. Larobina is not aware of this. More likely he is keeping it quite to continue the slanted opinion. Isn't that what lawyers do?

[Alpinerunner 61]

What do you think the problem with the bold part is? That the volunteer departments will have to title over everything to the City, then the City title it back to the new organization?

[Geppetto 31]

Is one fire department possible in Stamford?

Stamford Advocate Editorial

Friday, December 3, 2010

We have consistently stated that a city like Stamford should have a single fire service, with one chain of command, populated by paid and volunteer firefighters.

It would give a modern city like Stamford the fire protection it needs -- and is not currently getting -- and still honor the great tradition of volunteer firefighting in Stamford....

...We don't like saying it, but the mayor does make a convincing case as to why one citywide fire department is not practicable -- at least not now....

...It's not the ideal, but it definitely would be better than what we currently have. And could be the first step toward a unified department in the future.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Is-one-fire-department-possible-in-Stamford-858951.php

[FFPCogs 863]

Is one fire department possible in Stamford?

Stamford Advocate Editorial

Friday, December 3, 2010

http://www.stamforda...ford-858951.php

Thanks G,

Finally a realisitic appraisal of the situation in the Ragvocate. Two departments while certainly not ideal are indeed better than six and no matter how much I or some may think the plan is flawed or isnt enough, the truth is it is a HUGE step forward for Stamford at this time.

Cogs

Edited December 5, 2010 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

Thanks G,

Finally a realisitic appraisal of the situation in the Ragvocate. Two departments while certainly not ideal are indeed better than six and no matter how much I or some may think the plan is flawed or isnt enough, the truth is it is a HUGE step forward for Stamford at this time.

Cogs

I could agree that this plan could be a reasonable step at this time given the much clearer explanation of the legal obstacles preventing a single department.

However............

1) Working towards eventual consolidation into a single department should be part of the plan. Not doing so is nothing more than just "kicking the can down the road".

2) How in the world does the half of the city whose fire service isn't changing see an increase in their taxes while the half of the city whose fire service is changing (including the addition of 50+ paid positions) see NO increase in their taxes?

[FFPCogs 863]

I could agree that this plan could be a reasonable step at this time given the much clearer explanation of the legal obstacles preventing a single department.

However............

1) Working towards eventual consolidation into a single department should be part of the plan. Not doing so is nothing more than just "kicking the can down the road".

Fair enough, no argument there.

2) How in the world does the half of the city whose fire service isn't changing see an increase in their taxes while the half of the city whose fire service is changing (including the addition of 50+ paid positions) see NO increase in their taxes?

Ok I'll try to answer this one, but be forewarned the answer is based on MY understanding of the situation and may be be " biased " .

The residents of North Stamford have been subsidizing the operations of SFRD for some time, as tax dollars from the C and C/S tax districts were allocated to SFRD when they were not supposed to be. Since those funds will be going to a special service district and will be used to fund the new FD exclusively they will no longer be available for SFRD. The residents of downtown will have to make up the shortfall.

[TRex 9]

Fair enough, no argument there.

Ok I'll try to answer this one, but be forewarned the answer is based on MY understanding of the situation and may be be " biased " .

The residents of North Stamford have been subsidizing the operations of SFRD for some time, as tax dollars from the C and C/S tax districts were allocated to SFRD when they were not supposed to be. Since those funds will be going to a special service district and will be used to fund the new FD exclusively they will no longer be available for SFRD. The residents of downtown will have to make up the shortfall.

For what it is worth, here is my brief dissection of this so called proposal. . I agree with their opinion of one FD is the best way to go. I also agree that it is difficult to get it instituted, but not impossible. The numerous litigations instituted by the volunteers, which one might wonder, How has the obviously huge legal costs been funded? Was it with donated money from constituents for fire protection, or with allocated city tax dollars? Has anyone requested this accounting?

The proposal states that 2 departments would be created. The number is actually 3 with the Glenbrook FD remaining autonomous plus the SFRD, and now the New Stamford VOLUNTEER FD. In this day of shrinking economy and government bodies looking to down size and do with less government, why then is Stamford looking to add another governmental tier or agency when there is one already in place to address the same function?

Mr. Larobina is recommending that a special SERVICE district be established by a vote of the Bd. of Reps. as opposed to a special TAXING district, and states that the difference in the mill rate would be made up by a service fee added on top of the real estate tax bill. Do the residents realize that service fees are not tax deductible on income taxes?

In their attempts to one side the issue, the numbers presented by Mr. Larobina for SFRD to continue fire protection operations in the northern districts would be an additional 117 men based on past contract levels. If this were the case, SFRD would become a 400 man dept. and would be the largest fire dept. in the state protecting the 4th largest city in the state.

In fact the Nat'l Fire Prot. Agcy in general recommends that there be 1/2 a fire fighter on duty for every 1000 pop. In a city of 114000 as we are, that would be 57 men. Currently the minimum on duty staff including the units operating in the north is 52. That would mean that only 5 more men per shift or a total of 20 is all that would be needed minimally. 117 additional seem much skewed.

The difficulty in going the best route is not with the union, however, but with the volunteer leadership. They are the ones who won’t cooperate. And I do not mean to malign all volunteers. I feel that a well organized volunteer augmentated operation would be a great asset to the city and the department as ONE WHOLE, and not being lead by the current selfserving, selfish spoiled infants in place now.

[FireMedic049 597]

Fair enough, no argument there.

Ok I'll try to answer this one, but be forewarned the answer is based on MY understanding of the situation and may be be " biased " .

The residents of North Stamford have been subsidizing the operations of SFRD for some time, as tax dollars from the C and C/S tax districts were allocated to SFRD when they were not supposed to be. Since those funds will be going to a special service district and will be used to fund the new FD exclusively they will no longer be available for SFRD. The residents of downtown will have to make up the shortfall.

OK, but hasn't SFRD been staffing a few engines in the Northern areas for several years now? The Southern SFRD units have responding to calls in the North also, correct? So I wouldn't see that as "subsidizing", but rather "paying" for service. Now, it may not be an "equal" exchange, but I still find it hard to believe that the half of the city whose fire protection isn't going thru a major change and hiring new employees is the one who's taxes will be going up.

[Geppetto 31]

Mayor's proposed fire plan moving forward

12/08/2010

TOM EVANS

Stamford Times Staff Writer

STAMFORD -- The controversial fire plan proposed by Mayor Michael Pavia was recently reviewed by the Public Safety and Health Committee of the Board of Representatives, and is expected to go before the full board at its next regular meeting Jan. 3....

http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/story/495666

[Monty 35]

In this case, I'm not sure how involved the residents are in this discussion - however it's interesting to see how residents could terminate the district. It seems that as few as 200 voters (or 10% if less than 200) can cause a referendum to be called on terminating a district and with a 2/3 majority cause the district to be terminated. Now, what happens after that I don't know ....

It seems the CT general statues cover this topic already.

Sec. 7-329. Termination of district. Whenever the officers of such district vote to terminate its corporate existence and whenever a petition signed by ten per cent of the total number of persons qualified to vote in the meeting of such district or twenty of the voters of such district, whichever is less, applying for a special meeting to vote on the termination of the district is received by the clerk, the clerk shall call a special meeting of the voters residing within such district, the notice of which shall be signed by the officers thereof, by advertising the same in the same manner as is provided in section 7-325. Not later than twenty-four hours before any such meeting, two hundred or more voters or ten per cent of the total number of voters, whichever is less, may petition the clerk of the district, in writing, that a referendum on the question of whether the district should be terminated be held in the manner provided in section 7-327. If, at such meeting, a two-thirds majority of the voters present vote to terminate the corporate existence of the district, or, if a referendum is held, two-thirds of the voters casting votes in such referendum vote to terminate the corporate existence of the district, the officers shall proceed to terminate the affairs of such district. The district shall pay all outstanding indebtedness and turn over the balance of the assets of such district to the town in which the district is located, if the legislative body of the town authorizes such action. No district shall be terminated under this section until all of its outstanding indebtedness is paid unless the legislative body of the town in which the district is located agrees in writing to assume such indebtedness. On completion of the duties of the officers of such district, the clerk shall cause a certificate of the vote of such meeting to be recorded in the land records of the town in which the district is located and the clerk shall notify the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management.

[Monty 35]

From the Board of Reps Website -

http://boardofreps.org/committees/publicsafety/2010/items/ps28011/ps28011_plan_101201.pdf

Interesting - seemingly one sided perspective.

Quite a mess.

Not sure what the 'Brown Plan' is but it's interesting that there is nothing else in the section about other proposals made to the Task Force. I thought Cogs had presented a plan? - and of course there's been no input requested or allowed from the SFRD leadership or Local 786.

It seems that 3 (Springdale, Belltown, Glenbrook) of the agreements could be terminated by the City unilaterally.

Also, the city charter section says that the BOR can redistrict through an ordinance by 2/3rds majority. So, for the 3 departments, they could have their management contracts terminated, and 3 months later have their fire districts reorganized so it only includes their property

It's interesting that it is a 'fallacy' that there is a new fire tax. Maybe not for the residents in that part of the city. How about those int the A/B/PP who see their 'Mill Rate' increased by about 30%? I don't know what that means but I'm sure it means that those residents pay more. I know there is an argument that says these residents have been paying for services they haven't received - maybe they've been paying more than their fair share? Possibly? But someone has to fund the volunteer departments don't they? As mentioned elsewhere, aren't there SFRD crews stationed in those areas - and certainly available to respond.

It will be interesting to see what the full BOR does with it and whether there are questions raised - or whether the 'recommendations' are accepted as is.

[TRex 9]

Interesting - seemingly one sided perspective.

Quite a mess.

Not sure what the 'Brown Plan' is but it's interesting that there is nothing else in the section about other proposals made to the Task Force. I thought Cogs had presented a plan? - and of course there's been no input requested or allowed from the SFRD leadership or Local 786.

It seems that 3 (Springdale, Belltown, Glenbrook) of the agreements could be terminated by the City unilaterally.

Also, the city charter section says that the BOR can redistrict through an ordinance by 2/3rds majority. So, for the 3 departments, they could have their management contracts terminated, and 3 months later have their fire districts reorganized so it only includes their property

It's interesting that it is a 'fallacy' that there is a new fire tax. Maybe not for the residents in that part of the city. How about those int the A/B/PP who see their 'Mill Rate' increased by about 30%? I don't know what that means but I'm sure it means that those residents pay more. I know there is an argument that says these residents have been paying for services they haven't received - maybe they've been paying more than their fair share? Possibly? But someone has to fund the volunteer departments don't they? As mentioned elsewhere, aren't there SFRD crews stationed in those areas - and certainly available to respond.

It will be interesting to see what the full BOR does with it and whether there are questions raised - or whether the 'recommendations' are accepted as is.

Monty - Interestingly enough, simply put "The Brown Plan" refers to one of our SFRD Asst. Chiefs who provided the city adm. with a proposal that basically covered the entire geographical area of the city with existing personnel resources. No additional cost. You are also correct in asking the question of, why hasn't all the options and been presented to the boards? That is because, the administration is attempting to ram rod this through and down everyones throat. I do not know the reason for this although I have my suspicions. It is truly one sided.

You are also correct in your estimation of "Quite a Mess". And the elected officials who should be straightening this out have mad it worse. I do not mean by picking one side or the other. Remember, no one has recommended abolishing the volunteers, or even suggested it. The volunteers themselves are the only ones who have raised that spectre as a threat if they are placed under one organizational framework. Not even the union has stated it, even when the union is allowed to say anything. Here is a fact for you to digest, our Local 786 president after he directly asked to speak with the Mayor, was answered by the Mayor that he was advised not to speak with the union.

Let me sum it up without going through all the nuts and bolts. The SFRD and its union are doing what they are supposed to do, protect and deal with impacts on our working conditions, the 4 volunteer departments may or may not be doing what they are supposed to be by not being open and honest on the real situations existing in their districts. And the city adm. is not doing what they are supposed to be and providing the citizens or their representative board with all of the TRUE facts, and options without slanting them one way or the other. Politics as ususal.

Facts are; the volunteers current leadership are self serving themselves looking for positions. 58 additional personnel to run a volunteer FD. Doesn't that make anyone wonder, how is that volunteer? It is my observation after many years of being involved is that the public generally does not care about how may ff's are on board, or what color the engines are, or whether the ff's are paid or volunteer, until you start talking money and taxes, especially in this econmic climate. you would think that they would question why aren't we reducing government instead of creating a whole other layer to duplicate what exists already? When the city about 8 to 10 years ago proposed another cost saving measure by reducing the amount of sanitation workers on board a collection truck, the public outcry was a ground swell and ordinances were changed because the reduction meant that residents were now going to have to drag their own garbage cans out to the streets themselves. God forbid! The three and two man manning being proposed is less manning than on a refuse collection truck. The 4 man staffing is the same. The public does not get it. Only we do because it is personal and what we do. The public is more concerned about the number of people on board a trash collection truck than what is on a fire truck.

I have personal interest in seeing the volunteer departments survive. I have history in one of them. However, the leadership is not trying to preserve volunteers, they are trying to become another paid department because they are not part of the one that already exists. If the SFRD or "Brown Plan" were opted for, the volunteers would still have a function. But in their own words, ..."we won't be in charge anymore". This is what it is about. Who is to be in charge. Not what is best for the community. If they are successful in initializing this falacy with 58 more paid ff's, that number will exceed the number of active volunteers. Volunteer Department? I think not. If one of the membes of the vols. is reading this, I dare you to factually prove me incorrect.

There I go again, that da#@ soap box.