Update on Stamford Merger

[sqd47bfd 20]

This just in ....

http://boardofreps.org/committees/publicsafety/2011/items/ps28035.pdf

Looks like deja vu all over again.

One of the biggest gripes about the way things were was the overtime spending, precipitated by the mandate for one-for-one OT hiring, and exacerbated by poor management.

[rickperry99 8]

Wow. Just wow. The Mayor really wants to get rid of SFRD doesn't he? Privatization of the fire service at the expense of the taxpayers (financially and physically). How many SFRD members are going to be laid off when this "Joint Venture" takes effect? This is union busting plain and simple. And the taxpayers lives are on the line.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Looks like deja vu all over again.

One of the biggest gripes about the way things were was the overtime spending, precipitated by the mandate for one-for-one OT hiring, and exacerbated by poor management.

Tons of OT are built into this proposal.

There are 54 career personnel (plus Chief, & marshalls).

18 daytime and 12 nightime shifts averages to 15 firefighters 24 per day.

There are 168 hours in a week, meaning if divided by 4 shifts eguals 42 hours each. If each is scheduled to work 42 hours (thats 2 hours per week OT x 54 workers).

To cover the average 15 shift positions requires 60 personnel, but they are only hiring 54 (who figured the staffing #'s needed). So thats an additional 240 hrs per week of OT.

Now add the approximate 20% contractual time off (vacation, sick, etc.)that needs to be covered or 33 hours per week.

Thats 381 OT hours per week or 19,812 Overtime Hours per year for basic shift staffing.

If an average employee costs $75,000/yr then the OT costs for the planned shortfall is $1,071,563 or 12.6% of the budget.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Just a couple of interesting points in the proposal:

1) They have already calculated that Springdale is onboard even thought they have not signed the agreement. Even if they think thats a done deal, it is premature to put it out there.

2) The total staffing is 6 positions short of what is needed to meet the staffing levels listed.

3) The performance standard includes time, but not personnel. so as long as 1 FF arrives in the time, then they meet the standard.

4) Station Staffing. This is bad policy to list in this contract what the staffing needs to be. having equal staffing sounds nice, but does not give the PAID chief of the volunteer FD enough flexability. If you have 3ff's in a station do they ride on 1, 2 or 3 rigs? It may make more sense to have a 2 man engine in each then group the other 3) two man teams could be assigned to tankers, ladders &/or rescues.

Note: I'm not suggesting that 2 or 3 man rigs are acceptable, just basing it on whats listed.

Whats most interesting is other than they call it a volunteer dept., there is very little mention of volunteers in it (other than the minimum training standard).

[Monty 35]

Tons of OT are built into this proposal.

There are 54 career personnel (plus Chief, & marshalls).

18 daytime and 12 nightime shifts averages to 15 firefighters 24 per day.

There are 168 hours in a week, meaning if divided by 4 shifts eguals 42 hours each. If each is scheduled to work 42 hours (thats 2 hours per week OT x 54 workers).

To cover the average 15 shift positions requires 60 personnel, but they are only hiring 54 (who figured the staffing #'s needed). So thats an additional 240 hrs per week of OT.

Now add the approximate 20% contractual time off (vacation, sick, etc.)that needs to be covered or 33 hours per week.

Thats 381 OT hours per week or 19,812 Overtime Hours per year for basic shift staffing.

If an average employee costs $75,000/yr then the OT costs for the planned shortfall is $1,071,563 or 12.6% of the budget.

One thing here, you talk about 20% contractual time off ... who's to say what contract they put in place? They are a private company. Yes, they can unionize but I'm sure it could be a whole different situation than a truly municipal department.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out from here ....

[Monty 35]

Interestingly, checking the BOR web site and minutes for the steering committee meeting, it seems that this proposal wont be on the agenda for September.

Don't know if the Public Health and Safety committee will be meeting this month - nothing obvious on the calendar. Actually, it looks like they haven't met since June.

Guessing there wont be any answers on this topic for a few more weeks or months.

[CTFF 65]

The Mayors plan is about political payback and nothing more. It's not about public safety and it certainly not about saving money for everyone in Stamford.

[Bnechis 3,961]

One thing here, you talk about 20% contractual time off ... who's to say what contract they put in place? They are a private company. Yes, they can unionize but I'm sure it could be a whole different situation than a truly municipal department.

20% is a common time off for calculating costs, The may be different, but its a starting point.

[SFRD372 43]

Does anyone really think this will happen? Eight (8) plus MILLION DOLLARS start-up costs in this economy where the City of Stamford is laying-off employees, I certainly don't think so!

[CTFF 65]

Does anyone really think this will happen?

Pavia, Larobina, Valentine and few others I won't name do.

[redddogg317 1]

Just a couple of updates for your end of the summer reading....enjoy

The last link is the actual "contract" submitted to the board of reps by the newly formed "Stamford Volunteer Fire Department"....take note that only 3 out of the 5 volunteer depts in the city signed onto this "joint venture" as it's called...Happy Reading

http://www.thedailystamford.com/news...eer-plan-again

http://www.thedailystamford.com/news...-unions-claims

http://boardofreps.org/committees/pu...ms/ps28035.pdf

[IzzyEng4 427]

Just a couple of updates for your end of the summer reading....enjoy

The last link is the actual "contract" submitted to the board of reps by the newly formed "Stamford Volunteer Fire Department"....take note that only 3 out of the 5 volunteer depts in the city signed onto this "joint venture" as it's called...Happy Reading

http://www.thedailystamford.com/news...eer-plan-again

http://www.thedailystamford.com/news...-unions-claims

http://boardofreps.org/committees/pu...ms/ps28035.pdf

Your links do not work. Could you repost please. Thank you.

[redddogg317 1]

Your links do not work. Could you repost please. Thank you.

Sorry about that...thanks for letting me know.

Try these links below:

http://www.thedailystamford.com/news/stamford-fire-union-attacks-volunteer-plan-again

http://www.thedailystamford.com/news/stamford-volunteers-refute-fire-unions-claims

http://boardofreps.org/committees/publicsafety/2011/items/ps28035.pdf

Happy reading!!!

DJ

[IzzyEng4 427]

They are working, thank you.

[redddogg317 1]

Update of The Daily Stamford article

Stamford Fire Union Rips Volunteer Plan by Stamford Professional Fire Fighters Association Today

. The career fire fighters in Stamford still feel the Mayor's volunteer plan is not the best for Stamford.

The following is an opinion article written by the Stamford Professional Fire Fighters Association.

STAMFORD, Conn. — In a recent story (Stamford Volunteers Refute Fire Union’s Claim 8-19-11), officials of the Turn of River Fire department — one of three departments that make up a private company that Mayor Pavia wants to give a no-bid, sole-source contract ($8.6 million annually) to provide fire service for North Stamford — actually make the best case against the plan for a second publicly-funded, privately-run department.

Matthew Maounis, an assistant chief at Turn of River, admitted that his department only responds to 85 percent of its calls. Seth Berger, president of Turn of River, said, “I’m not saying we don’t miss calls”.

While .850 would be a spectacular batting average for a Major League Baseball player, anything less than 1.000 in public safety is a failure -- people can die as a result. This isn’t a game. According to Turn of River’s own website, the department responded to 2,126 emergency runs in 2006, the most recent data posted. That means that 318 emergencies were not responded to.

What if you were one of the 15 percent whose house was on fire, whose loved one was suffering a heart attack, who was trapped in a car with your children after a collision or who smelled gas in your home — and your local fire department didn’t respond? Would the 85 percent response rate be any solace?

[Alpinerunner 61]

Update of The Daily Stamford article

Stamford Fire Union Rips Volunteer Plan by Stamford Professional Fire Fighters Association Today

. The career fire fighters in Stamford still feel the Mayor's volunteer plan is not the best for Stamford.

Photo credit: Anthony Buzzeo The following is an opinion article written by the Stamford Professional Fire Fighters Association. The Daily Stamford welcomes letters to the editor and opinion pieces from any and all residents willing to submit them.

STAMFORD, Conn. — In a recent story (Stamford Volunteers Refute Fire Union’s Claim 8-19-11), officials of the Turn of River Fire department — one of three departments that make up a private company that Mayor Pavia wants to give a no-bid, sole-source contract ($8.6 million annually) to provide fire service for North Stamford — actually make the best case against the plan for a second publicly-funded, privately-run department.

Matthew Maounis, an assistant chief at Turn of River, admitted that his department only responds to 85 percent of its calls. Seth Berger, president of Turn of River, said, “I’m not saying we don’t miss calls”.

While .850 would be a spectacular batting average for a Major League Baseball player, anything less than 1.000 in public safety is a failure -- people can die as a result. This isn’t a game. According to Turn of River’s own website, the department responded to 2,126 emergency runs in 2006, the most recent data posted. That means that 318 emergencies were not responded to.

What if you were one of the 15 percent whose house was on fire, whose loved one was suffering a heart attack, who was trapped in a car with your children after a collision or who smelled gas in your home — and your local fire department didn’t respond? Would the 85 percent response rate be any solace?

There is speculation that this new department’s chief will be Ray Whitbread, a Milford resident who is the spokesman for this second, paid fire department and a former chief of Turn of River — the department that admittedly doesn’t respond to 15 percent of its emergency calls.

Don’t the residents of North Stamford deserve better? Why does the mayor continue to ignore a plan developed by the Stamford Fire & Rescue chiefs that would provide adequate fire safety coverage for the entire city at no additional cost to the taxpayers and also provide a meaningful role for volunteer firefighters?

To submit an opinion article or letter to the editor e-mail reporter Anthony Buzzeo,tbuzzeo@TheDailyStamford.com.

I know it doesn't need to be said here, because we know the full story, and this piece was written to sway the ignorant public, but I'll say it anyway. This opinion article pretends that the new merged FD will have no career firefighters, which isn't true. The new fire department WILL respond to 100% of the calls and residents don't have to worry about being in that 15% that doesn't get a volunteer response. The volunteers will and have been there for the major incidents (fires, MVAs, Storms) that require the additional manpower. Furthermore, the currently 85% of the calls being supplemented with a volunteer response is pretty good when probably 15% of all calls NEED additional manpower beyond the career engines.

It looks really ignorant/desparate when articles like this are written that completely skew and ignore the facts. If the article was written about how the whole city needs to have one Chief, or that union firefighters are better than non-union firefighters, at least you would have something to argue about...

[FireMedic049 597]

I know it doesn't need to be said here, because we know the full story, and this piece was written to sway the ignorant public, but I'll say it anyway. This opinion article pretends that the new merged FD will have no career firefighters, which isn't true. The new fire department WILL respond to 100% of the calls and residents don't have to worry about being in that 15% that doesn't get a volunteer response.

You just did the same thing that you accused them of. Unless, the volunteers in the new department will be staffing their stations 24/7 (in conjunction with the career FFs), the residents will still need to worry about that 15%. The 15% refers to the number of times that the volunteers (in that district at least) opted not to provide a response for an incident. As I understand things, the North Stamford residents are already getting a career response to all incidents from SFRD units (with higher staffing levels than what is proposed for the new "VFD"). Integrating career FFs into the current VFDs rather than having them staffing separate SFRD units as they do now isn't "solving" the volunteer attendance issue. In fact, I think it's highly probable that volunteer attendance could decrease - specifically on the lower priority calls because the volunteers would know that their apparatus would still respond to the call even if the volunteers didn't respond.

The volunteers will and have been there for the major incidents (fires, MVAs, Storms) that require the additional manpower. Furthermore, the currently 85% of the calls being supplemented with a volunteer response is pretty good when probably 15% of all calls NEED additional manpower beyond the career engines.

Maybe you think that an 85% response rate is "pretty good", but I think the citizens would disagree - particularly those whose incident falls into that 15%. Anything less than a 100% response rate from a Fire Department is more like "not good enough".

It looks really ignorant/desparate when articles like this are written that completely skew and ignore the facts. If the article was written about how the whole city needs to have one Chief, or that union firefighters are better than non-union firefighters, at least you would have something to argue about...

That might be true, but I think there's still "something to argue about" with the article as it is given that you were trying to make the argument that the article was skewing and ignoring the facts.

[mstrang1 213]

Alpine- what you ignore is the fact that currently, a' "single engine call" (wires down, EMS, etc) in ToRFD actually get 3 career staff (E8 or 9) and whatever volunteers show up. Under the proposed "upgrade", that same call will get 2 career firefighters and whatever volunteers show up. That is 1/3 less staff than Engine 8 or 9, and 1/2 the staff of the rest of the city units. Guess what? That "upgrade" will only cost the residents of the fire district (NOT taxpayers), at minimum, and additional 8 MILLION DOLLARS. If I was resident of this fire district, I would not be worrying about the "major" incidents like storms, fires, and MVAs, those are "good" calls. I'd be worried if I was the diff breather at 6am on Christmas morning. Or the asthmatic at 2pm on a weekday during the school year. THAT is the 15 percent that I am worried about.

You say only 15 percent of the calls need manpower beyond the career engine. How do you know which call will be one of that 15%? Do you wait for the career (either SFRD or the proposed SVFD) staff to get on scene and realize they need more help for people to come out of the woodwork?

In regards to writing an article that skews the facts, I seem to remember a letter to the editor of the Advocate from Matt Maounis slamming the union for our 24 hour work schedule, our pay, our vacation time, etc. Was it not the same Matt Maounis who enacted the 24 work schedule in TORFD (the first in the city)and signed off on firefighters in TORFD getting Lieutenants pay or Fire Marshall pay? Or the same Matt Maounis who said he needed more career staff when they were TORFD career guys, but now can handle it with only 2? Talk about someone ignoring and skewing facts...

[Alpinerunner 61]

You just did the same thing that you accused them of. Unless, the volunteers in the new department will be staffing their stations 24/7 (in conjunction with the career FFs), the residents will still need to worry about that 15%. The 15% refers to the number of times that the volunteers (in that district at least) opted not to provide a response for an incident. As I understand things, the North Stamford residents are already getting a career response to all incidents from SFRD units (with higher staffing levels than what is proposed for the new "VFD"). Integrating career FFs into the current VFDs rather than having them staffing separate SFRD units as they do now isn't "solving" the volunteer attendance issue. In fact, I think it's highly probable that volunteer attendance could decrease - specifically on the lower priority calls because the volunteers would know that their apparatus would still respond to the call even if the volunteers didn't respond.

Correct under the current situation, SFRD provides a 3 man engine. Under the new proposal the SVFD will provide a 3 man engine (or 2 at night when volunteers are more available). The whole point is that this 15% of calls that "get no response" are single-engine calls (and sometimes AFAs), actually do get a response now and WILL get a response in the futute. To imply that you might not get an engine for your medical call or CO alarm is FALSE.

Maybe you think that an 85% response rate is "pretty good", but I think the citizens would disagree - particularly those whose incident falls into that 15%. Anything less than a 100% response rate from a Fire Department is more like "not good enough".

Again, that 15% are calls that don't require and 2-3 apparatus. They are wires down, medicals, etc, and they ARE getting a response currently and will get a response with the new system. That is the whole point I'm trying to make. To provide more than an engine to these calls is a waste.

That might be true, but I think there's still "something to argue about" with the article as it is given that you were trying to make the argument that the article was skewing and ignoring the facts.

[Alpinerunner 61]

Alpine- what you ignore is the fact that currently, a' "single engine call" (wires down, EMS, etc) in ToRFD actually get 3 career staff (E8 or 9) and whatever volunteers show up. Under the proposed "upgrade", that same call will get 2 career firefighters and whatever volunteers show up. That is 1/3 less staff than Engine 8 or 9, and 1/2 the staff of the rest of the city units. Guess what? That "upgrade" will only cost the residents of the fire district (NOT taxpayers), at minimum, and additional 8 MILLION DOLLARS. If I was resident of this fire district, I would not be worrying about the "major" incidents like storms, fires, and MVAs, those are "good" calls. I'd be worried if I was the diff breather at 6am on Christmas morning. Or the asthmatic at 2pm on a weekday during the school year. THAT is the 15 percent that I am worried about.

You say only 15 percent of the calls need manpower beyond the career engine. How do you know which call will be one of that 15%? Do you wait for the career (either SFRD or the proposed SVFD) staff to get on scene and realize they need more help for people to come out of the woodwork?

In regards to writing an article that skews the facts, I seem to remember a letter to the editor of the Advocate from Matt Maounis slamming the union for our 24 hour work schedule, our pay, our vacation time, etc. Was it not the same Matt Maounis who enacted the 24 work schedule in TORFD (the first in the city)and signed off on firefighters in TORFD getting Lieutenants pay or Fire Marshall pay? Or the same Matt Maounis who said he needed more career staff when they were TORFD career guys, but now can handle it with only 2? Talk about someone ignoring and skewing facts...

I understand where your coming from about the volunteers not making every AFA. These could be serious incidents. But under the current AND new plan there will be 2 engines in the district that will get there quickly, and volunteers can respond directly to the scene quickly also and not have to go back to the firehouse. Currently SFRD sends 1 engine and 1 quint to alarms, so it's really not that different from the proposed plan. That being said, most of those 85% are AFAs that the volunteers respond to.

About the manpower, the plan is for 3 during the day and 2 and night, when volunteers are readily available. And as history shows, you regulary get more than the 2 volunteers minimum on those 85% of calls, so you can't say they won't be there.

About the cost. I really don't know. Without knowing the numbers well, it's only logical that to add career manpower, it will add cost. The proposed staff levels from both plans are similar. You can't add SFRD engines to Long Ridge without adding SFRD personell, or stripping them from downtown, it's just math.

The bottom line is that there is only 1 way to provide proper coverage to North Stamford, and that is staffed 2 engines in TOR, and 2 staffed engines in Long Ridge. Neither plan is "unsafe" or puts the public at risk. The argument isn't about public safety, it's about where those career guys come from.

[FireMedic049 597]

Correct under the current situation, SFRD provides a 3 man engine. Under the new proposal the SVFD will provide a 3 man engine (or 2 at night when volunteers are more available). The whole point is that this 15% of calls that "get no response" are single-engine calls (and sometimes AFAs), actually do get a response now and WILL get a response in the futute. To imply that you might not get an engine for your medical call or CO alarm is FALSE.

I made no such implication. I clearly stated that under both the current system and the proposed system, a career staffed unit would be responding to each call. The issue in question is the volunteer response to these incidents.

Under the current system, 15% of the time a unit from the VFD itself and staffed by volunteers did not respond, however a career staffed SFRD unit did. Under the proposed system, 15% of the time a unit from the "VFD" staffed by career FFs will respond, but no volunteer staffed unit will respond. The primary difference between these two situations is this: in one scenario the VFD looks bad because their apparatus did not leave the station and in the other, the "VFD" looks good because their apparatus responded to the call and created the illusion that the volunteers responded to the call.

Again, that 15% are calls that don't require and 2-3 apparatus. They are wires down, medicals, etc, and they ARE getting a response currently and will get a response with the new system. That is the whole point I'm trying to make. To provide more than an engine to these calls is a waste.

I don't think anybody is necessarily disputing the fact that there are calls that do not require more than one engine. What is in dispute is whether or not this new system will actually change anything or just make it look like it did.

The career response aspect is basically a wash since 50% of the time, the career response would be the same as now and the other 50% it would be with one less FF. The only other difference would be the apparatus being used for the response - one belonging to SFRD vs one belonging to the "VFD". The volunteer response would still be very much in question unless each station is going to be staffing volunteers in-station 24/7 because otherwise nothing has changed except the name on the apparatus and the employer of the career FFs. Oh yeah, there's still that issue of where the new career staff will be coming from. Will it be from the current roster of volunteers and even further impact the volunteer response in a negative fashion?

Additionally, the reason a career staffed unit is responding in those areas now is because of the lack of response to calls by the volunteers. An 85% response rate by any Fire Department is something to be ashamed of.

[mstrang1 213]

I understand where your coming from about the volunteers not making every AFA. These could be serious incidents. But under the current AND new plan there will be 2 engines in the district that will get there quickly, and volunteers can respond directly to the scene quickly also and not have to go back to the firehouse. Currently SFRD sends 1 engine and 1 quint to alarms, so it's really not that different from the proposed plan. That being said, most of those 85% are AFAs that the volunteers respond to.

About the manpower, the plan is for 3 during the day and 2 and night, when volunteers are readily available. And as history shows, you regulary get more than the 2 volunteers minimum on those 85% of calls, so you can't say they won't be there.

About the cost. I really don't know. Without knowing the numbers well, it's only logical that to add career manpower, it will add cost. The proposed staff levels from both plans are similar. You can't add SFRD engines to Long Ridge without adding SFRD personell, or stripping them from downtown, it's just math.

The bottom line is that there is only 1 way to provide proper coverage to North Stamford, and that is staffed 2 engines in TOR, and 2 staffed engines in Long Ridge. Neither plan is "unsafe" or puts the public at risk. The argument isn't about public safety, it's about where those career guys come from.

Alpine, as your profile indicates only that you are a volunteer firefighter in Fairfield County, I am not sure if you are a volunteer with TOR or another of the Big 5/4/3, or another area of Fairfield. That being said, I am a firefighter on Engine 9 in Stamford. Every shift I have, I am obligated to go on the calls received during that time period. Sometimes we get a filled out volunteer response, sometimes 2 guys, sometimes zero. I have been on plenty of calls during the evening/late night hours with zero turnout from volunteers, exactly the time when A) you claim that there are volunteers aplenty, there would be (under the proposed "plan") 1 less person on staff and C) incidents during this time naturally need more manpower. In addition, I have never seen the Chief of TOR on ANY call, and have seen Matt Maounis maybe 2 or 3 times in the past 2 months. I realize there are LTs responding, but otherwise, who is in charge of the crew? It seems that the career officer is expected to act in this regard, which we are mostly happy to do, except we, the career officers, do not know the abilities/training/crew strength of the volunteers responding in.

In regards to the cost, it seems to me that even if SFRD has to open two new engine companies for LRFCo, which the Brown Plan does not indicate, I do not think 2 engine companies will cost 8 million dollars.

Also, as I was looking at the agreement, I noticed that for firefighters to be hired, they only need to be certified as EMR (the old MRT)and have two years to become an EMT. This means that there can possibly be a diminished level of care for up to two years in these districts.

[Bnechis 3,961]

About the manpower, the plan is for 3 during the day and 2 and night, when volunteers are readily available. And as history shows, you regulary get more than the 2 volunteers minimum on those 85% of calls, so you can't say they won't be there.

Go back about 77 pages and the "history" is a couple of houses burning to the ground when the volunteers did not show up. Good thing it was at night and they did make the other 85%.

About the cost. I really don't know. Without knowing the numbers well, it's only logical that to add career manpower, it will add cost. The proposed staff levels from both plans are similar. You can't add SFRD engines to Long Ridge without adding SFRD personell, or stripping them from downtown, it's just math.

If you go back a few pages I took a stab at the math and found that the proposed contract did not have enough personnel to cover the proposed staffing pattern even if none of the career staff were on vacation, sick etc.

The bottom line is that there is only 1 way to provide proper coverage to North Stamford, and that is staffed 2 engines in TOR, and 2 staffed engines in Long Ridge. Neither plan is "unsafe" or puts the public at risk. The argument isn't about public safety, it's about where those career guys come from.

The only way is 4 engines? Maybe thats why ISO 9 is what exists in this area. I find it very hard to believe that no one has pointed out that water supply is a major component in fighting fire in areas without hydrants.

I'll leave the truck and rescue functions out, since we have not even covered basic engine ops here.

[mstrang1 213]

Bnechis-

As I am sure you are aware, but others may not, the Brown Plan has engine companies in TOR, Springdale and Long Ridge houses, and assumes that the volunteers will be available to perform "ancillary functions. In most of these districts, the "ancillary" functions (water supply being the biggie) are actually more important than anything.

Currently, on a report of a working fire in the northern districts, the call gets 3 city engines, a city truck, the city rescue, and the city DC, in addition to the volunteer or (lightly) staffed LRFCo units. Under the new system, the call will get a lot less manpower. Unless, of course, they call SFRD in on mutual aid.

As was discussed at one point, it was pointed out the volunteers should combine and have each company specialize in one area that they are currently equipped to handle (Belltown truck work, TOR rescue work, LRFCo tanker ops, etc.). This was denied by the volunteer "leaders" because they felt that as a volunteer they would not be able to do engine work, which apparently is the only aspect of firefighting worth doing. As I had pointed out, maybe 30 pages ago, career guys hold those "ancillary" roles like truck and rescue work, in higher regard, held for senior members.

One area that TOR seems to need improvement on, and I assume it is a driver issue, is responding with the right apparatus. In non hydrant areas, that tanker should be the first thing out of the door, not Rescue 66.

[Geppetto 31]

Volunteer chiefs: Proposed plan combines manpower, offers guaranteed response

By KARA O'CONNOR

Stamford Times

09/16/2011

Other than the rhetoric -

"...The volunteer fire service agreement, as well as other proposed components of the mayor's overall fire protection plan and its financial details, are scheduled to be reviewed by the Board of Representatives at its Oct. 3 meeting. The plan needs to be approved by the Board of Representatives before it can be implemented. "

http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/story/511337

[Geppetto 31]

City reps review Pavia's fire service contract proposal

Jeff Morganteen,

Stamford Advocate

Thursday, September 22, 2011

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/City-reps-review-Pavia-s-fire-service-contract-2184529.php

[mstrang1 213]

City reps review Pavia's fire service contract proposal

Jeff Morganteen,

Stamford Advocate

Thursday, September 22, 2011

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/City-reps-review-Pavia-s-fire-service-contract-2184529.php

Either someone messed up, or someone is lying. The mayor say in one sentence that no changes will happen for two years.

"Pavia said any changes made to the city's fire service won't be enacted for two years."

Within 2 sentences, it is being said that the contract takes effect on July 1, 2012.

"The five-year contract would take effect on July 1, 2012."

That is less than one year away! Which is it?

[CTFF 65]

I think the mayor is saying nothing would happen for two years I'd charter change is the method and 7/1/12 is the date for his plan.

[Geppetto 31]

Stamford reps press for more details of mayor's fire plan

Jeff Morganteen, Stamford Advocate

September 24, 2011

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Stamford-reps-press-for-more-details-of-mayor-s-2187493.php

[Geppetto 31]

Questions surround fire plan

By KARA O'CONNOR

Stamford Times

09/28/2011

Per Mayor Pavia -

..."I only go by the numbers that the experts provide," he said. "I know that this plan has been analyzed and the cost is around $8.6 million. Anyone else that comes up with a number should be qualified to do so."...

http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/story/511893