Update on Stamford Merger

[Geppetto 31]

Fire Plan Could Raise Downtown Taxes

Mayor Michael Pavia's proposed plan to create a new privately-run fire station is still being criticized by firefighters and Stamford citizens alike who are uncertain as to how the plan will be funded.

By Jamal Powell

Stamford Patch

10/07/11

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/poll-fire-plan-could-raise-downtown-taxes

[Geppetto 31]

Fire mergers on Public Safety Committee meeting agenda

Jeff Morganteen

Stamford Advocate

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

STAMFORD -- Members of the Board of Representatives' Public Safety Committee invited Greenwich and Danbury fire department officials to their monthly meeting Thursday night to describe how a single-chief fire department manages both career and volunteer firefighters....

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Fire-mergers-on-Public-Safety-Committee-meeting-2227012.php

[FFPCogs 863]

And yet again I must reiterate that there are combination systems...working combination systems, that offer models far more integrated and successful the Greenwich or Danbury.

Time to get out of the box and expand your horizons to build what Stamford needs.

Cogs

[Geppetto 31]

Greenwich chief details combination fire departments

Volunteer versus career: Greenwich fire chief offers advice on merging two forces

Jeff Morganteen,

Stamford Advocate

Friday, October 21, 2011

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Greenwich-chief-details-combination-fire-2230554.php

[CTFF 65]

And yet again I must reiterate that there are combination systems...working combination systems, that offer models far more integrated and successful the Greenwich or Danbury.

Time to get out of the box and expand your horizons to build what Stamford needs.

Cogs

Cogs where have you been? The thread has been quite without you.

I'm fairly certain that the Chief of Greenwich was invited to speak by a member of the BOR. It's quite typical of the government to look to the local area and see what is being done.

Also are you saying the Greenwich and Danbury aren't working combination systems?

Care to explain where each Dept is not integrated and are unsuccessful?

[ff1234 0]

I have the original document in my office.

711

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs where have you been? The thread has been quite without you.

I'm fairly certain that the Chief of Greenwich was invited to speak by a member of the BOR. It's quite typical of the government to look to the local area and see what is being done.

Also are you saying the Greenwich and Danbury aren't working combination systems?

Care to explain where each Dept is not integrated and are unsuccessful?

Yes this thread has quieted down quite a bit. It is sometimes tough for me to get online for any length of time given my current environment, but when I can I invariably check in.

No I didn't say that Greenwich and Danbury don't work, what I said was there are combination systems that DO work further afield..i.e. Montgomery Cty MD, PA, TX, VA and elsewhere. Which leads to the integration issue. In those systems the integration is far more extensive especially in Montgomery where ALL officers and FFs are trained and certified to the same standards using the same methodologies and testing methods as well as the same annual recert programs. This removes or at least greatly reduces the supposed discrepencies between career and volunteer FF and officer qualifications. On scene a company is a company regardless of paycheck or not....and since staffing is also a component of these systems there is ALWAYS a specified crew assigned to each unit or station. Here again far more integration in that some of those staffed units/stations are career and some are volunteer...why some are even both. Imagine there are even career and vollies working off the same rig as ONE crew, will wonders never cease?. This to the best of my knowledge this is not the case in either Greenwich or Danbury or many other places for that matter.

Now to be fair I am not very well versed in all things DFD related other than the latest consolidation attempts there, but as far as Greenwich is concerned they have some very useful and proven ideas and programs that could be used in Stamford as well. The key word there is some. For us, the key to resolving our particular situation and in resolving it in a lasting and productive way, is to take the best of what works elsewhere, combine it and come out the other side with something that will serve ALL of us and more importantly Stamford's residents to the highest degree. No disresepect intended but IM not so H opinion that means looking a little farther than the other side of the Mianus river.

Cogs

p.s.

Let me just add that the notion of looking outside Stamford for ideas is in no way meant to disrespect or question the experience, knowledge, dedication or qualifications of ANY of those involved in resolving the situation. But when looking at things objectively it is quite evident that a number of impasses exist in Stamford which makes bringing both sides together extremely difficult at best ...and this is one more area in which some of these other systems can act as models, having already successfully overcome these or similar circumstances.

Edited October 24, 2011 by FFPCogs

[kpelley 0]

Cogs, so you'll accept any plan where the volunteers don't have to answer to a career officer.

[Geppetto 31]

Pavia wants fast-track fire plan approval

Time 'to act': Mayor accuses officials of unnecessary delay on mergers

Kate King

Stamford Advocate

October 24, 2011

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Pavia-wants-fast-track-fire-plan-approval-2234400.php

&

Mayor Urges Approval of Fire Plan for Stamford

Anthony Buzzeo

Daily Stamford

October 24, 2011

http://www.thedailystamford.com/news/mayor-urges-approval-fire-plan-stamford

&

Mayor urges fire service plan be approved

KARA O'CONNOR

Stamford Times

10/24/2011

http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/story/513335

Edited October 25, 2011 by Geppetto

[Bnechis 3,961]

Pavia wants fast-track fire plan approval

Time 'to act': Mayor accuses officials of unnecessary delay on mergers

Kate King - Stamford Advocate - October 24, 2011

Of course the Mayor wants them to fast track it, the longer its open the more likely someone will figure out that its a big shell game and the numbers do not work.

"Skigen said the mayor's administration has itself delayed progress on the fire plan by failing to provide a financial analysis of the proposal, which members requested in April."

As I already figured (and posted), the number of career firefighters in the proposal does not equal the numbers needed to cover the minimum manning as proposed. That’s even before taking contractual time and sick leave into effect.

The emperor has no clothes, if we pass it fast he figures no one will notice.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs, so you'll accept any plan where the volunteers don't have to answer to a career officer.

No you're way off base. I'll accept a plan that integrates command so that firefighters follow the direction of officers be they career or volunteer. It has been often repeated here that a major sticking point is that some, or maybe many, career members feel unsure or unsafe taking direction from volunteer officers and in cases maybe rightly so. What I have been hammering from day one is standardized training, testing and quailifcations for ALL officer positions regardless of whether they are career or volunteer to help alleviate this problem. That coupled with guaranteed staffing using volunteers where possible in their existing areas and when not by career personnel. I am convinced that the day paid, night volunteer system can and will work as it does elsewhere with some adjustments to suit some valid concerns. The main obstacle to that option is the career opposition to a change in their work schedules plain and simple. As I see it the cost saving of utilizing volunteers in their houses at night (and possibly even weekends at some stations), along with the far more important priority that every station in town would have a minimum 4 man trained crew on duty 24/7 is a win win for the public. This has all been explained here, along with the chain of command, duty schedules, blah blah blah ad nauseum as a foundation on which to build, but it has been bypassed. I'm convinced that this is indeed a valid option, but it is one that has been ignored mainly because it solves the problem without serving anyone's agenda other than the public's.

There are of course other options out there, but any that relegates volunteers to a secondary or support status simply because they are volunteers I absolutely cannot and will not support.

Cogs

Edited October 25, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Geppetto 31]

Mayor Pushes Fire Plan Forward Following Weekend Blaze

Mayor Michael Pavia announced on Monday that he was seeking a lasting decision on the passage of his proposed Volunteer Fire Department Plan, which has been disputed by local fire companies and Stamford residents for nearly two years.

Stamford patch

10/25/11

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/mayor-pushes-fire-plan-forward-following-weekend-blaze

[FireMedic049 597]

Mayor Pushes Fire Plan Forward Following Weekend Blaze

Mayor Michael Pavia announced on Monday that he was seeking a lasting decision on the passage of his proposed Volunteer Fire Department Plan, which has been disputed by local fire companies and Stamford residents for nearly two years.

Stamford patch

10/25/11

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/mayor-pushes-fire-plan-forward-following-weekend-blaze

From the article:

"Despite all the criticism that you may be hearing, the Volunteer Fire Department plan is truly a great plan," Pavia said. "It resolves a long-standing litigation against the city of Stamford, it provides better service and better fire response in the volunteer districts, it does so without any increase in taxes to those districts, and it will save every taxpayer in the city of Stamford from carrying an additional cost of about $15 million."

So if there will be no tax increase in the volunteer districts, then where is the City getting the money to pay for 51 new positions?

It would seem to me that in order to do that, 1) the City would have to be cutting a substantial amount of spending elsewhere in their budget or 2) the City has been grossly overtaxing the citizens for quite some time if they have that much money laying around to fund 51 new positions for the foreseeable future with no additional tax revenue.

[FFPCogs 863]

So if there will be no tax increase in the volunteer districts, then where is the City getting the money to pay for 51 new positions?

It would seem to me that in order to do that, 1) the City would have to be cutting a substantial amount of spending elsewhere in their budget or 2) the City has been grossly overtaxing the citizens for quite some time if they have that much money laying around to fund 51 new positions for the foreseeable future with no additional tax revenue.

As it stands money raised in the volunteer districts for fire protection is supposed to be used to fund each volunteer department, and not SFRD. This is a hold over from the days when the City of Stamford and the long gone Town of Stamford (what we now call North Stamford) themselves merged. For a number of years dating back to long before 2008 money has been syphoned off from the taxes raised "up North" to fund SFRD. Under the proposed revisions in the Mayor's plan each department would be funded exclusively from the funds raised in their districts. In other words the taxes from the people of downtown (SFRD district) would be the sole source for SFRD funding and the same for North Stamford (SVFD district). As a result there would no longer be the tax dollars from up North available to help fund SFRD as there are now and that shortfall would result in a tax increase for the downtown residents/businesses to maintain the current service level there. It has been stated that many up North may actually enjoy a slight tax reduction if the plan is implemented, as they would no longer be responsible for helping to fund SFRD.

But alas this situtaion being as convoluted as it is means that it is not quite that simple. Fact is SFRD maintains 4 pieces of appartatus and their attendent crews "up North" at present and those have to be paid for by someone and rightfully they are being paid for (at least in part) by the residents of Glenbrook, Springdale and TOR. And since both BFD and LRFCo utilize SFRD as well they must also contribute. But the funds being collected are in excess of the costs associated with those SFRD assets stationed up North and their responses into the districts. Also as we saw with Malloy the VFDs are being underfunded as well. In effect this whole mess was Malloys attempt to get hold of the potential tax dollars up North which could then be used anywhere not just for the fire service. This whole debacle was, is and always will be about money and anyone who thinks otherwise is either extremely naive or seeking to push an agenda. At least for some of us we readily accept and admit this fact, and in doing so can then expend our resources on what will best serve ALL ......others it seems would rather spend precious time, money and energy on developing covers for their agendas under the cloak of "public safety".

Cogs

Edited October 26, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Geppetto 31]

Stamford Firefighters Respond to Pavia's Fire Plan Push

SPFA has responded unfavorably to Mayor Michael Pavia's recent attempts to secure a passage of his Stamford Volunteer Fire Plan.

Stamford Patch

10/26/11

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/spfa-responds-to-pavia-s-fire-plan-push

&

Pro Firefighters Are Best for Stamford, Union Says

Anthony Buzzeo

Daily Stamford

10/26/11

http://www.thedailystamford.com/news/pro-firefighters-are-best-stamford-union-says

Edited October 26, 2011 by Geppetto

[FD828 77]

As it stands money raised in the volunteer districts for fire protection is supposed to be used to fund each volunteer department, and not SFRD. This is a hold over from the days when the City of Stamford and the long gone Town of Stamford (what we now call North Stamford) themselves merged. For a number of years dating back to long before 2008 money has been syphoned off from the taxes raised "up North" to fund SFRD. Under the proposed revisions in the Mayor's plan each department would be funded exclusively from the funds raised in their districts. In other words the taxes from the people of downtown (SFRD district) would be the sole source for SFRD funding and the same for North Stamford (SVFD district). As a result there would no longer be the tax dollars from up North available to help fund SFRD as there are now and that shortfall would result in a tax increase for the downtown residents/businesses to maintain the current service level there. It has been stated that many up North may actually enjoy a slight tax reduction if the plan is implemented, as they would no longer be responsible for helping to fund SFRD.

But alas this situtaion being as convoluted as it is means that it is not quite that simple. Fact is SFRD maintains 4 pieces of appartatus and their attendent crews "up North" at present and those have to be paid for by someone and rightfully they are being paid for (at least in part) by the residents of Glenbrook, Springdale and TOR. And since both BFD and LRFCo utilize SFRD as well they must also contribute. But the funds being collected are in excess of the costs associated with those SFRD assets stationed up North and their responses into the districts. Also as we saw with Malloy the VFDs are being underfunded as well. In effect this whole mess was Malloys attempt to get hold of the potential tax dollars up North which could then be used anywhere not just for the fire service. This whole debacle was, is and always will be about money and anyone who thinks otherwise is either extremely naive or seeking to push an agenda. At least for some of us we readily accept and admit this fact, and in doing so can then expend our resources on what will best serve ALL ......others it seems would rather spend precious time, money and energy on developing covers for their agendas under the cloak of "public safety".

Cogs

Talk about agendas! Tax reduction for up North? The mayor's plan doesn't detail a line by line cost analysis, doesn't show about salaries, OT, sick, vacation time etc... How can you sit there and believe that? You honestly think the cost of this debacle will be the stated cost? Stating that the monies collected from the residents up North exceed the costs of SFRD operations and responses in those areas? They(SFRD) respond to EVERY call or emergency unlike the volunteers who do NOT (except Belltown). Do you know the actual cost for all those responses, manpower, stations, utilities, ets..? The obvious agenda highlighted by your statements is about slamming the SFRD and the union that represents it.

[FFPCogs 863]

Talk about agendas! Tax reduction for up North? The mayor's plan doesn't detail a line by line cost analysis, doesn't show about salaries, OT, sick, vacation time etc... How can you sit there and believe that? You honestly think the cost of this debacle will be the stated cost? Stating that the monies collected from the residents up North exceed the costs of SFRD operations and responses in those areas? They(SFRD) respond to EVERY call or emergency unlike the volunteers who do NOT (except Belltown). Do you know the actual cost for all those responses, manpower, stations, utilities, ets..? The obvious agenda highlighted by your statements is about slamming the SFRD and the union that represents it.

I'm not slamming anybody, just stating what is. I do not know te breakdown of costs, I have only seen a document stating money in and money out for fire protection in the VF districts...alot more comes in than goes out. As for what I believe well as I've said time and again there are other options beside the two current ones, but they have not been afforded any amount of study or any serious consideration now have they? Both "sides" here seemed determined to have it their way or no way and in the end it will end up that everybody loses...not the least of which being the public we all serve.

Let me be clear about my agenda....24/7 standardized staffing by competent, well trained, effective fire service personnel comprised of both career and volunteer sectors in a fully integrated chain of command. Cut costs while providing exceptional service. It can be done with no layoffs and relatively little if any increase in spending to Stamford's overall fire service expenditures. Compromise by all so that all will benefit is my agenda!!

Cogs

[Geppetto 31]

New fire service plan cloaked in secrecy

Stamford Advocate

Jeff Morganteen

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

STAMFORD -- Volunteer fire department leaders and city officials attended a series of closed-door meetings last year to hammer out what became a five-year, $42.3 million contract between the city and the fire companies, according to a collection of emails and meeting agendas obtained by The Advocate....

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/New-fire-service-plan-cloaked-in-secrecy-2237469.php

[Geppetto 31]

Jack Cavanaugh: Time for a unified fire department

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Stamford Advocate Editorial

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Jack-Cavanaugh-Time-for-a-unified-fire-department-2237755.php

[CTFF 65]

Cogs,

when you say "Compromise by all", what compromises do see the volunteers and VFD's making under your plan?

P.S. I'm all for Standardized training, testing and an integrated command structure.

Edited October 27, 2011 by CTFF

[FireMedic049 597]

As it stands money raised in the volunteer districts for fire protection is supposed to be used to fund each volunteer department, and not SFRD. This is a hold over from the days when the City of Stamford and the long gone Town of Stamford (what we now call North Stamford) themselves merged. For a number of years dating back to long before 2008 money has been syphoned off from the taxes raised "up North" to fund SFRD. Under the proposed revisions in the Mayor's plan each department would be funded exclusively from the funds raised in their districts. In other words the taxes from the people of downtown (SFRD district) would be the sole source for SFRD funding and the same for North Stamford (SVFD district). As a result there would no longer be the tax dollars from up North available to help fund SFRD as there are now and that shortfall would result in a tax increase for the downtown residents/businesses to maintain the current service level there. It has been stated that many up North may actually enjoy a slight tax reduction if the plan is implemented, as they would no longer be responsible for helping to fund SFRD.

But alas this situtaion being as convoluted as it is means that it is not quite that simple. Fact is SFRD maintains 4 pieces of appartatus and their attendent crews "up North" at present and those have to be paid for by someone and rightfully they are being paid for (at least in part) by the residents of Glenbrook, Springdale and TOR. And since both BFD and LRFCo utilize SFRD as well they must also contribute. But the funds being collected are in excess of the costs associated with those SFRD assets stationed up North and their responses into the districts. Also as we saw with Malloy the VFDs are being underfunded as well. In effect this whole mess was Malloys attempt to get hold of the potential tax dollars up North which could then be used anywhere not just for the fire service. This whole debacle was, is and always will be about money and anyone who thinks otherwise is either extremely naive or seeking to push an agenda. At least for some of us we readily accept and admit this fact, and in doing so can then expend our resources on what will best serve ALL ......others it seems would rather spend precious time, money and energy on developing covers for their agendas under the cloak of "public safety".

Cogs

More and more it really sounds like City of Stamford is a city in name only. Variable tax rates based on where you live within "the city". Variable fire protection services based on where you live within "the city". A city Fire Department, that is (on paper) primarily responsible for only a portion of the city limits. The creation of a second "city fire department" (one that will be a "volunteer FD" in name only and not actually be run by the city, just funded by it) to service a portion of the city rather than expanding the existing "city fire department".

Maybe I'm just too naive or something, but why not make the entire city one tax district?

[FFPCogs 863]

More and more it really sounds like City of Stamford is a city in name only. Variable tax rates based on where you live within "the city". Variable fire protection services based on where you live within "the city". A city Fire Department, that is (on paper) primarily responsible for only a portion of the city limits. The creation of a second "city fire department" (one that will be a "volunteer FD" in name only and not actually be run by the city, just funded by it) to service a portion of the city rather than expanding the existing "city fire department".

Maybe I'm just too naive or something, but why not make the entire city one tax district?

Good question but one that I cannot answer. I'm fairly certain that much of this division stems from when the City Charter (which was written in 1949) merged the City and Town of Stamford. While I and others may disagree with this situation the fact is (and as much as I hate hearing this phrase here at work, it applies).....it is what it is.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs,

when you say "Compromise by all", what compromises do see the volunteers and VFD's making under your plan?

As a disclaimer let me just say that the following is my opinion and mine alone...this is not nor should it be construed to be a policy or platform of the volunteer fire service of Stamford.

Well for starters here's one we both agree on that has met resistance in Vollywood in the past:

P.S. I'm all for Standardized training, testing and an integrated command structure.

Beyond that:

Consolidate into one Division (or battalion if you prefer) (SFRD being the other)

Allow SFRD duty personnel in the volunteer houses M-F 7a - 7p on a 3 on 3 off rotation. This will allow career members to work the same number of hours annually thus maintaining their salaries

Accept an SFRD Deputy Chief as IC and SFRD Company Officers for those same hours

Coordinate/participate in all training through SFRD training division

Answer to a Commission, Commissioner or Dir. of PS (same with SFRD)

Guarantee minimum staffing (4 per station) and responses by volunteer personnel during their duty hours (7p - 7a) to nationally recognized standards...failures to do so will mean station(s) turned over to SFRD full time

Standardized equipment/purchasing (as long as the minumum standard/spec are maintained VFDs can add to their equipment/rigs using their own funds)

Provide qualified volunteer duty Chiefs (Deputies) for volunteer duty hours (this is basically done now [411 goes just about eveywhere] but not formalized)

Volunteer Chiefs would become Deputies and no longer be department heads

Accept one paid Division Chief (Chief of Volunteer Services) to coordinate and oversee all volunteer personnel and operations (directly answerable to the Commission(er) or Dir. of PS)

Sign a contract which specifies duties, grievances procedues, performance standards, ect ect

Standardized uniforms/ station wear

Standardized by-laws

Eliminate districts as they are to be replaced by first due response areas

Well there's a few to start

So in the interest of conversation what would you personally be willing to comprise on?...after all being that this is a hypothetical conversation turn around is fair play.

Cogs

Edited October 27, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

Good question but one that I cannot answer. I'm fairly certain that much of this division stems from when the City Charter (which was written in 1949) merged the City and Town of Stamford. While I and others may disagree with this situation the fact is (and as much as I hate hearing this phrase here at work, it applies).....it is what it is.

Right, antiquated.

[sqd47bfd 20]

Variable tax rates based on where you live within "the city". Variable fire protection services based on where you live within "the city".

There are 4 tax rates in Stamford. Fire protection services is one of the factors that affects the mill rate for a given address, but there is also sanitary sewer, and city garbage collection.

[FireMedic049 597]

There are 4 tax rates in Stamford. Fire protection services is one of the factors that affects the mill rate for a given address, but there is also sanitary sewer, and city garbage collection.

Not sure what your point is, nor if you understand the one I was making.

From what I understand, property taxes in Stamford are not uniform. For example, A homeowner in tax district "A" might have a total millage rate of 20.0, while the homeowner in tax district "B", "C" and "D" may have total millage rates of 18.5, 21.0 and 22.4 respectively.

It would seem to me that all citizens are not being treated equally when it comes to their taxes. Why wouldn't everybody in the same city be taxed at the same rates?

[FFPCogs 863]

Right, antiquated.

So be it but it is the framework that is in place and niether SFRD, the VFDs or anyone one of us can change it unilaterally no matter how "right" it may be to do so. And on that note I will say that the Mayor's plan does indeed take into account the legalities involved in Stamford, something that the previous administration tried to ignore and paid for in court more than once.

Cogs

[CTFF 65]

As a disclaimer let me just say that the following is my opinion and mine alone...this is not nor should it be construed to be a policy or platform of the volunteer fire service of Stamford.

Well for starters here's one we both agree on that has met resistance in Vollywood in the past:

Beyond that:

Consolidate into one Division (or battalion if you prefer) (SFRD being the other)

Allow SFRD duty personnel in the volunteer houses M-F 7a - 7p on a 3 on 3 off rotation. This will allow career members to work the same number of hours annually thus maintaining their salaries

Accept an SFRD Deputy Chief as IC and SFRD Company Officers for those same hours

Coordinate/participate in all training through SFRD training division

Answer to a Commission, Commissioner or Dir. of PS (same with SFRD)

Guarantee minimum staffing (4 per station) and responses by volunteer personnel during their duty hours (7p - 7a) to nationally recognized standards...failures to do so will mean station(s) turned over to SFRD full time

Standardized equipment/purchasing (as long as the minumum standard/spec are maintained VFDs can add to their equipment/rigs using their own funds)

Provide qualified volunteer duty Chiefs (Deputies) for volunteer duty hours (this is basically done now [411 goes just about eveywhere] but not formalized)

Volunteer Chiefs would become Deputies and no longer be department heads

Accept one paid Division Chief (Chief of Volunteer Services) to coordinate and oversee all volunteer personnel and operations (directly answerable to the Commission(er) or Dir. of PS)

Sign a contract which specifies duties, grievances procedues, performance standards, ect ect

Standardized uniforms/ station wear

Standardized by-laws

Eliminate districts as they are to be replaced by first due response areas

Well there's a few to start

So in the interest of conversation what would you personally be willing to comprise on?...after all being that this is a hypothetical conversation turn around is fair play.

Cogs

Of course this is hypothetical.

I don't think I have anything to offer on the consolidation of the volunteers into one division or battalion. I think this is something best left to the volunteer dept's alone.

I'm still opposed to day staffing. I think it is a logistical nightmare.

I agree the on duty DC ( currently Unit 4) should be the IC in a new system.

Training will be handled by the SFRD training division.

Are you saying one fire commission? I agree with that.

I agree to minimum staffing to get a rig out the door. With that I think we'll need to stop POV responses, though Chiefs would still be able to respond.

Standardized equipment is the way to go. Though I'm not sure who would own new fire apparatus (I would think the city) so I'm not sure allowing extra equipment to be added is the way to go.

Though I'm not sure about the rest of your proposal.

[mstrang1 213]

Not sure what your point is, nor if you understand the one I was making.

From what I understand, property taxes in Stamford are not uniform. For example, A homeowner in tax district "A" might have a total millage rate of 20.0, while the homeowner in tax district "B", "C" and "D" may have total millage rates of 18.5, 21.0 and 22.4 respectively.

It would seem to me that all citizens are not being treated equally when it comes to their taxes. Why wouldn't everybody in the same city be taxed at the same rates?

The different tax rates are not only based on fire protection, but also, sewers, garbage pickup, water, etc. The northern part of the city has no garbage pickup, sewers, public water, etc, so the tax rate there is different. Fire protection is also different, but is only a small part of the reason for differences in mill rates. Getting water mains and sewer lines to the entire city would be a fantastic thing, but an enormous logistical and financial responsibility, as you could imagine.

[FFPCogs 863]

Of course this is hypothetical.

I don't think I have anything to offer on the consolidation of the volunteers into one division or battalion. I think this is something best left to the volunteer dept's alone.

I'm still opposed to day staffing. I think it is a logistical nightmare.

I agree the on duty DC ( currently Unit 4) should be the IC in a new system.

Training will be handled by the SFRD training division.

Are you saying one fire commission? I agree with that.

I agree to minimum staffing to get a rig out the door. With that I think we'll need to stop POV responses, though Chiefs would still be able to respond.

Standardized equipment is the way to go. Though I'm not sure who would own new fire apparatus (I would think the city) so I'm not sure allowing extra equipment to be added is the way to go.

Though I'm not sure about the rest of your proposal.

First off thanks for the response.

So it would seem that in some ways we are closer than not, and on other points still some work to be done. What this tells me is that given an opportunity a workable, long lasting, and mutually beneficial agreement can be reached through a process that most should be familiar with.....negotiation. Each difference has a middle ground which could be met and that would offer the public the best bang for their buck. And I'm convinced that it can be done while still taking into account the few points on which each side will not budge...if any. .

Just a quick side note:

Since this would obviously be a major sticking point let me just relay my thinking on the day staffing concept......

The average annual number of hours worked currently for SFRD is 2184 or ninety one 24 hours tours in a four platoon rotation

The average annual number of hours to be worked under the option I propose is also 2184 or one hundred eighty two 12 hour tours in a two platoon rotation

To accomplish this would mean that some personnel would be assigned to the 2nd (or volunteer) Battalion. This might seem unusual but there are a number of locals in which members work different schedules dependent upon where they are assigned. While it may be unpopular in some (or many) respects, compromising is such a fashion will ensure jobs are not lost...in fact when doing the math it becomes clear that there would even be some promotions involved, i.e creating a two Deputies for the 2nd Battalion, plus other company officers as well I do believe. And as for overtime I know it is common practice for members to work a 1/2 shift now...why would they not be able to do one 1/2 tour "up North" when needed to fill any vacancies for a given day tour? Or maybe even say full 12 hour day tour at BFD and the remaining 12 hour night tour at say 4 Company...members do move from station to station in one tour covering vacancies now don't they?

This concept would not be the "logistical nightmare" it may appear to be and this I know because it is currently working in a number of countywide FDs with far larger career staffs working a multitude of schedules.

The key to resolving this mess in a manner that will have a long lasting positive outcome for all is to maximize the similarities we share while minimizing the differences...doing so will put the public first and offer us our best hope in reforming our fire service. Anything is possible and as I've said so many times before, failure to try guarantees only one thing....failure.

Cogs