Update on Stamford Merger

[FFPCogs 863]

But if the four departments are becoming one wouldn't it make sense to continue down the path the belltown has? It's seems to me you've pushed for some type compensation for a bit now, to say otherwise is flat out lying.

Continue down the path Belltown has? That would be an ideal situation, but unfortunately since that hasn't happened yet there is very little chance new members will simply flock to this new VFD because Belltown is a part of it. Belltown's recruitment has always been by word of mouth due to our reputation, which it seems is not shared by the other VFDs. This is not a slight against them but simply the situation borne out by the facts. As been pointed out here repeatedly by my esteemed career colleagues such as yourself, times have changed and people simply don't have the time or inclination to volunteer anymore for it's own sake. To an extent that is true but there are many departments and communities that have successfully addressed this situation through the implementation of incentives programs. Stamford IMO would be an ideal candidiate for some of them and I've never said otherwise, ever. I may be many things but a liar is not one of them. I stand firmly behind my convictions and a review of this thread will clearly demonstrate that.

You could save the taxpayers from stipends and tax breaks

Now when it comes to stipends, tax breaks or other recruitment and retention incentives the cold hard truth is they offer the taxpayer the most for their buck when used in conjunction with staffing, training and other performance initiatives. The fact is incentives for the whole department would cost less than the cost of one new career Engine Company. In other words more than 200 volunteers for less than the cost of 16 career personnel...which is best for the taxpayer?

I also agree that to come up with a better solution there needs to be cooperation from all sides. I don't see that happening from the Mayor or those pushing hard for his plan because they have something personal to gain from this.

Maybe but giving up is not an option. Our collective future depends on our collective efforts...it is as simple as that.

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited November 29, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

I have to respectfully disagree on this one. IMO most residents have absolutely no idea who or what department responded to their emergency let alone if they were career, volunteer, or paid per call. I don't think the average citizen has any idea wether or not the volunteers are receiving compensation of any kind. I am not saying that if they knew they would have an issue with it, I am just saying they don't know. They see a BRT show up and ff's take care of whatever the emergency is period.

Fair enough, but one thing residents almost universally do care about is what any service will cost them. Incentives implemented as I have described throughout this thread will offer them the most for THEIR money....and by the way it's a BWT that shows up in Belltown....

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Maybe you can clear something up for me, I thought the volunteers were going to save the city money because they would do the same job for free? Now you guys want to get a stipend? At what point are you no longer volunteers?

And maybe this will clear it up for you.

What drives me (and many others) to volunteer is a personal choice to serve and I (we) neither want nor expect anything in return for that service. But that is me (or us). The simple truth is that choice is not one that is made as commonly today as it was in years past. Quite frankly in the world today most people want (or need) to get something to give something...right or wrong that is simply how it is. Also VFDs have traditionally been social organizations as well as service ones wherein members joined not only to help the community but by extension to help each other. In close knit organizations such as VFDs you tend to find members using each others services as a matter of course due to their departmental affiliation and commaraderie. It is no different than a career FF calling on a fellow career FF who, as a side job, mows lawns or builds decks ect. Unfortunately due to a variety of socialogical and financial reasons much of that draw has disappeared in the volunteer service. So we are left with a choice. We can either put our heads in the sand and expect or even demand people volunteer for reasons that in general no longer exist, or we can accept that the world has changed and develop the means to address those changes. IMO incentives are a means to address those changes. As for when one is no longer a volunteer...well as I see it, it is when the law says so.

You've got to look at the big picture, this shouldn't just be about what might work in 2011. The city needs to design a system that will work now, and will also work 15, 20 or 30 years from now.

It is a well known fact that volunteers, compensated or not, cost far less than career personnel and always will, but cost alone without performance is not the answer. The demands on volunteers are more now than they've ever been, rising call volume, more stringent training standards, performance standards ect. Fact is all of these are perfectly legitimate expectations for the public to have of their service, but to achieve them will always bear a cost. The big picture is IMO if volunteers disappear from Stamford the costs to the taxpayers will rise considerably to provide adequate fire protecion Citywide in that same 15, 20 or 30 years. So again it is the taxpayers who are left with a choice which is rightly there's to make. I believe, based on research and personal experience, that incentives, as a component of the outline I've repeatedly explained in this thread, will offer them the most cost effective fire service for their money long into the future....bar none.

5 or 10 years down the road the stipend wont be enough, they will want more

Many, including many voters believe the same about the IAFF.

How much longer do the taxpayers have to suffer?

I suppose that for many voters that same question could be asked of the IAFF as well, hence the continued existence of Stamford's VFDs.

.

The key to maintaining a active pool of volunteers isn't offering them dollar incentives, it's whatever you've got going on at Belltown.

What works in Belltown may not be what works elsewhere and no amount of wishing thinking by any of us will make it so. We must look at what will offer the best hope of maintaining and in fact expanding Stamford's volunteer sector as a whole, not only now but in the long term. And this applies even if ultimately it is the "Brown plan" that is chosen since by it's own provisions it will rely on volunteers as well. What has been the traditional motivations for volunteering it seems no longer exist so we must look to alternatives to address this reality and achieve the goal of cooperatively serving the community.

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited November 29, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Not saying that at all.

I think we can all agree that many professional athletes (NFL, NBA, etc.) display less than professional behavior on a routine basis. However, despite that conduct, they are still a professional athlete since they are being paid to play their sport.

Similarly, as I've already stated, the use of the term "professional firefighter" refers to occupational status, not actual behavior or professionalism itself.

You're right that's where the rub is, but not necessarily as you see it. The rub is that the volunteer side typically jumps to the conclusion that "professional" means behavior (i.e. professionalism), when in reality the intended meaning is engaged in firefighting as an occupation rather than as a non-occupational secondary activity.

If we're talking strictly on the use of the term "volunteer", I'd be inclined to agree that more career FFs have issue with the liberal usage of such. However, I think a lot more volunteers firefighters are hung up on the usage of the term "professional".

While I clearly see and understand your point, as so often happens in the course of our discussions, I think we will have to respectfully agree to disagree since it is evident niether of us will change the view of the other.

Also, "legal" does not necessarily equate to "appropriate".

I have to say that IMO if, and only if, the end result is the fire protection the community deserves in this case they are one in the same.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Just a thought........

If SFRD will be able to handle the whole City as envisioned under the "Brown Plan" with no additions does that mean that it is currently overstaffed/equipped or will it come to pass that parts of the City will be understaffed/equiped if it is implemented and ultimately require additional career resources to compensate?

Seems to me (and it turns out alot of taxpaying voters and their Reps) that if your going to take on the additional responsibilites of the "Brown plan" with the current SFRD resources there must be either too many and too much on hand now or those resources will become stretched beyond the breaking point trying to provide adequate coverage.

My question is.....so which is it?

Cogs

Edited November 29, 2011 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

Cogs,

What is the cost of 200 volunteers vs the cost of 20 career firefighters?

gear?

training?

insurance?

those 20 career firefighters are also going to stay 20+ years on the job. How long does the average volunteer stay active?

I'm sure if we break down 20 career firefighters are the better bang for your buck over the course of their career.

I love the overstaffed or stretched to thin angle the "Brown" plan detractors have. The answer is neither. The resources of SFRD will be spread out, SFRD will be doing more for the residents dollar.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs,

What is the cost of 200 volunteers vs the cost of 20 career firefighters?

gear?

training?

insurance?

those 20 career firefighters are also going to stay 20+ years on the job. How long does the average volunteer stay active?

I'm sure if we break down 20 career firefighters are the better bang for your buck over the course of their career.

With all due respect I beg to differ. The cost outline can be found with a little effort. If it is something that really interests you then by all means do the research..

I love the overstaffed or stretched to thin angle the "Brown" plan detractors have. The answer is neither. The resources of SFRD will be spread out, SFRD will be doing more for the residents dollar.

How so, by removing both an Engine Company and a Truck Company from areas of downtown? That seems to me like a reduction in service for those who live and work there, not to mention pay taxes based on those assets being stationed at their current locations. Will the redistribution of those assets be reflected in a tax reduction for those affected as well as a tax increase for those aquiring those assets? If so are the taxpayers aware of such? If not, well then somebody's getting screwed. And let's not forget that under the "Brown plan" the residents of Belltown will get no paid presence in their current district yet will end up paying for it. How are they getting more for their dollar? And while we're at it, what about volunteer funding, which is an important consideration in these trying economic times, since both plans will admittedly rely on volunteers to provide adequate resources? No matter how you slice it you just can't squeeze more out of this lemon.

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited November 29, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

Just out of curiosity, if a volunteer department decides to do a pay per call incentive program, do they need to get approval from the tax paying public? Or is it up to them to do whatever they want with their money? What are the volunteer departments doing in Stamford? Pay per call, or some other incentive program? Is it working?

[FFPCogs 863]

Just out of curiosity, if a volunteer department decides to do a pay per call incentive program, do they need to get approval from the tax paying public?

My understanding is that if tax funds will be used to support the program(s) than yes they do either directly or through the established representative bodies of the municipality/AHJ.

Or is it up to them to do whatever they want with their money?

For department funds raised by means other than public taxation yes they can do with those funds as they see fit in keeping with whatever Federal, State, Local or District laws, ordinances or regulations, if any, that may apply to those funds.

What are the volunteer departments doing in Stamford? Pay per call, or some other incentive program?

Nothing

Is it working?

Since there are no programs in place there is no data to support their effectiveness or lack thereof in Stamford. Some believe incentives don't work, some believe they do. To be fair research can be interpreted predjudicially either way. Only through their establishment and continued and constant scrutiny can this question be answered for Stamford.

Stay Safe

Cogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

Continue down the path Belltown has? That would be an ideal situation, but unfortunately since that hasn't happened yet there is very little chance new members will simply flock to this new VFD because Belltown is a part of it. Belltown's recruitment has always been by word of mouth due to our reputation, which it seems is not shared by the other VFDs.

So would you say that to save taxpayers money, the stipends are not needed for the volunteers in BFD, since clearly they do not need them, but those in the other depts will need them. Wont this lead to problems in the future and what does this say about the leadership/environment in the other depts.? Could it be that the internal BS is so bad that even stipends may not help?

Now when it comes to stipends, tax breaks or other recruitment and retention incentives the cold hard truth is they offer the taxpayer the most for their buck when used in conjunction with staffing, training and other performance initiatives. The fact is incentives for the whole department would cost less than the cost of one new career Engine Company. In other words more than 200 volunteers for less than the cost of 16 career personnel...which is best for the taxpayer?

While on paper they look like they offer more bang, they sometimes do and sometimes do not.

How many of those 200 volunters actually exist? What if only 100 volunteers become active with incentives?

Do they all need to be interior ff's or does a minimum % need to be? I am not talking about did they complete the training to be interior, I am talking about the members who pack up and walk balk and forth in front of the fire building (they are not interior).

Now lets say you get 60% of the 100 are true interior ff's. you are paying for 40 hose packers who are not firefighters. So now we should be comparing the cost of 16 career to 60 volunteers. What about the insurance ratings? Those volunteers only count as 1/3 of a career ff by the insurance industry. So lets add to the cost of incentives the cost of insurance. Now even though I am only counting the 60 volunteers, you still need to buy the gear & insurance for the other 40.

And maybe this will clear it up for you. What drives me (and many others) to volunteer is a personal choice to serve and I (we) neither want nor expect anything in return for that service. But that is me (or us).

So its ok to offer incentives to only some of the volunteers?

As for when one is no longer a volunteer...well as I see it, it is when the law says so.

Fair enough, lets rely on federal law to define this. Here is an interesting federal definition: Anhydrous Ammonia is defined by federal law (specified by congress) as a non-flammable gas. Thats what it says in its MSDS, DOT Guild, USCG Manual, Railroad Guild, etc. But Anhydrous Ammonia has a flammable range of 16% - 25% in air. So The laws of the US says it does not burn, but the laws of chemistry says it does. Be careful of relying on the laws written by politicians.

It is a well known fact that volunteers, compensated or not, cost far less than career personnel and always will, but cost alone without performance is not the answer.

Thats true, the current system costs much less, except of course to the people who have suffered because of the lack of performance.

The big picture is IMO if volunteers disappear from Stamford the costs to the taxpayers will rise considerably to provide adequate fire protecion Citywide in that same 15, 20 or 30 years. So again it is the taxpayers who are left with a choice which is rightly there's to make. I believe, based on research and personal experience, that incentives, as a component of the outline I've repeatedly explained in this thread, will offer them the most cost effective fire service for their money long into the future....bar none.

Thats only true, if the performance is there. There are many depts. that use incentives and look like they are cost effective, but proof is in the performance and many of them can not perform to the standards that they should

[FFPCogs 863]

B,

How nice of you to chime in, I was wondering where you were. Glad you're here to resume our ongoing tete a tete.

Well enough of the pleasantries time to address your queries as best I can.

So would you say that to save taxpayers money, the stipends are not needed for the volunteers in BFD, since clearly they do not need them, but those in the other depts will need them. Wont this lead to problems in the future and what does this say about the leadership/environment in the other depts.? Could it be that the internal BS is so bad that even stipends may not help?

No I would not say that at all. If various incentives were to be implemented they would have to be distributed equally through an across the board program to avoid any problems in the future. As for the leaderships of the other VFDs I have no comments other than to say we as a department and me personally have always enjoyed a good working relationship with all them and expect that this would continue regardless of whether or not incentives come into play. As it stands today any internal issues within the other VFDs are there's and there's alone. If the proposed consolidation does in fact take place only then might I or anyone else have input on how best to resolve any of them.

While on paper they look like they offer more bang, they sometimes do and sometimes do not.

And this I have maintained all along. I urge the adoption of only those programs that have proven successful elsewhere inasmuch as that proof exists.

How many of those 200 volunters actually exist? What if only 100 volunteers become active with incentives?

Currently roughly about 100 on paper. One of the main premises of the incentives propsed is to increase those numbers by using them to offset a primary reason people are unable to volunteer...the cost of living in Stamford. A duty stipend may help achieve that as it has elsewhere in the tri State area. If in fact we are stagnant at 100 then the program will need to be revisited and adjusted to balance the cost vs performance requirements. In the end as ar as I am concerned we are bound by two mitigating factors, FSLA and the requirement to maintain adequate manpower (meaning at least 3 [preferably 4] qualified FFs in every VFD house 24/7/365) using career, volunteer or a combination of both to meet the needs of the community with as little additional expense as possible.

Do they all need to be interior ff's or does a minimum % need to be? I am not talking about did they complete the training to be interior, I am talking about the members who pack up and walk balk and forth in front of the fire building (they are not interior).

Simply put and as it has been proposed here before...My belief is that yes one must be interior qualified to participate in a duty stipend or paid on call incentives program. Any other component of a program would be based on the neeeds of the department and or community and would need to be negotiated and based in realistic, practical and attainable parameters to address those needs.

Now lets say you get 60% of the 100 are true interior ff's. you are paying for 40 hose packers who are not firefighters. So now we should be comparing the cost of 16 career to 60 volunteers. What about the insurance ratings? Those volunteers only count as 1/3 of a career ff by the insurance industry. So lets add to the cost of incentives the cost of insurance. Now even though I am only counting the 60 volunteers, you still need to buy the gear & insurance for the other 40.

Insurance would be a part of the operating expenses of the department as they currently are and always have been. I must admit that I do not have that information available in front of me, nor can I easily aquire it at present due to the constraints of my employment. Thank you for pointing it out. Equipment is also an operating expense and while yes it would increase the overall budget I'm quite certain that cost would be less than the benefits portion of the compensation packages of the hypothetical 16 new career personnel discussed earlier. Also serviceable gear can be handed down if necessary as a cost saving measure which is a common practice in many departments.

So its ok to offer incentives to only some of the volunteers?

No as I said accross the board based on the program requirements.

Fair enough, lets rely on federal law to define this. Here is an interesting federal definition: Anhydrous Ammonia is defined by federal law (specified by congress) as a non-flammable gas. Thats what it says in its MSDS, DOT Guild, USCG Manual, Railroad Guild, etc. But Anhydrous Ammonia has a flammable range of 16% - 25% in air. So The laws of the US says it does not burn, but the laws of chemistry says it does. Be careful of relying on the laws written by politicians.

I'm afraid this is a non sequiter although I do get your point. If we are going to look at FSLA in the same light as Anhydrous Ammonia and the governmemt view as opposed to reality then all career personnel should be free to volunteer as FFs of they so choose. And yes while we must be ever mindful of the law the fact is like it or not all our laws are written by politicians. As written and reinforced by recent federal DOL decisions FSLA allows for a degree of compensation, taxable compensation by the way, for our nations volunteers, to ignore that law is to me irresponsible if it's terms have the potential to help serve the communty.

Thats true, the current system costs much less, except of course to the people who have suffered because of the lack of performance.

And here again any incentives should require performance standards in order to recieve them designed and enforced to reduce if not eliminate these occurances.

Thats only true, if the performance is there. There are many depts. that use incentives and look like they are cost effective, but proof is in the performance and many of them can not perform to the standards that they should

Fair enough. Let me be clear in that I am not advocating throwing money or tax abatements or any other kind of incentive into the wind and hoping for the desired result. Quite to the contrary I stand firmly and adamantly on the belief that any incentives must initially show a return in the the form of an increased level of service provided to the community and thereafter in the maintainance of that higher standard as determined by independent oversight.

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited November 29, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

This is a response of mine from another site I bring over to stimulate our discussion here:

While we're on the subject of theoretical augmentations to SFRD to cover "up North" I felt I should throw my two cents into the fray in terms of costs.

As I see it to fully cover the entire City inclusive of the current VF districts would require the following bare bones minimum additions to SFRD:

Long Ridge: 2 additional FF per staion per shift for a total of 16

2 ffs x 2 stations x 4shifts = 16

One additional Truck Company which, although I believe it would be pushing it, I'll keep within the Capt's parameter of "back-up rescue tools could be accommodated to any Truck Company". That's another 16

4 ffs x 4 shifts = 16

plus another Deputy and their aide that's another 8

2 ff x 4 shifts = 8

So at a bare minimum we're looking 40 additional personnel.

For the purposes of this discussion and simplicity's sake I'll keep it to just new FF salary even though the fact is the price tag would be substantially higher with Company officers depending on rank and the Deputy/aide. I'll also throw in the rigs and stations at no cost, we'll just assume that these personell will be riding existing rigs out of exisiting VF stations to simplify it even further:

A first year SFRD FF makes a base salary of just over $48,000 annually but we'll just round off to 48K for simplicity again to illustrate the point.

48,000 x the standard 30%($14,400) in benefits = $62,400 annually.

Ok so $62,400 x 40 = $2,496,000 but as we all know the actual number is substantially higher.

The point here is, that absolute bare minimum of $2,000,000 plus could be used to fund a number of programs to recruit and retain volunteers while mainaining SFRDs current ranks...it then becomes a matter of distributing those career and volunteer personnel effectively to best serve the needs of the community as a whole. Everyone knows my theory on how best to achieve that, but there is still a window of opportunity (at least hypothetically) to explore others...give it your best shot based on the $2,496,000.

Take care

Stay Safe

and Happy Holidays

Cogs

Edited November 29, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

The point here is, that absolute bare minimum of $2,000,000 plus could be used to fund a number of programs to recruit and retain volunteers while mainaining SFRDs current ranks...it then becomes a matter of distributing those career and volunteer personnel effectively to best serve the needs of the community as a whole. Everyone knows my theory on how best to achieve that, but there is still a window of opportunity (at least hypothetically) to explore others...give it your best shot based on the $2,496,000.

While this may be true, it doesn't seem to address the other half of the situation - integrated citywide fire operations. Additionally, it there no true guarantee up front that it will provide the desired return on investment.

However, adding those positions to SFRD would provide a guaranteed return on investment. Couple that with an integration of the VFDs and SFRD under a single command/operating structure and fire chief plus volunteer incentives and you still come in significantly less than what is being proposed currently in addition to addressing the whole situation.

[FFPCogs 863]

While this may be true, it doesn't seem to address the other half of the situation - integrated citywide fire operations. Additionally, it there no true guarantee up front that it will provide the desired return on investment.

However, adding those positions to SFRD would provide a guaranteed return on investment. Couple that with an integration of the VFDs and SFRD under a single command/operating structure and fire chief plus volunteer incentives and you still come in significantly less than what is being proposed currently in addition to addressing the whole situation.

Oh ye of short memory...

My answer to integration is scrawled on page after page of this thread. And while yes there is no guarantee incentives will acheive the necessary volunteer numbers there are precedents that strongly suggest they will. Beyond that there is no guarantee that the theoretical bare bones minimum SFRD manpower will sufficiently cover either since it would still rely on volunteers for addtional Truck Co.ops and water supply, not to mention storm and disaster coverage as well...unless of course we're just going to call back career personnel every time there's a fire up north, a storm or other disaster thus adding to the overtime budget strain.

Cogs

Edited November 29, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

Oh ye of short memory...

My answer to integration is scrawled on page after page of this thread.

I'm aware of you thoughts on integration. You were specifically addressing the expansion of SFRD and appeared to be of the opinion that the money spent on additional career staffing would be better spent on volunteer incentives, however failed to address the whole issue in question. I was more or less speaking to that oversight.

And while yes there is no guarantee incentives will acheive the necessary volunteer numbers there are precedents that strongly suggest they will. Beyond that there is no guarantee that the theoretical bare bones minimum SFRD manpower will sufficiently cover either since it would still rely on volunteers for addtional Truck Co.ops and water supply, not to mention storm and disaster coverage as well...unless of course we're just going to call back career personnel every time there's a fire up north, a storm or other disaster thus adding to the overtime budget strain.

Cogs

I'm really not following this "reliance on the volunteers" theme you've got going on here. It's my understanding that the SFRD "expansion" plan does not eliminate the volunteers. Regardless of one's personal feelings on the matter, the volunteers still had a role in the plan. It would appear to me that since the SFRD plan proposed "expansion" without an increase in career personnel, then there was intention to substantially rely on the volunteers in some fashion. So, I'm not clear about the concern over still needing volunteer assistance even after adding 40 career personnel since it appeared that they were going to be used anyway.

[Geppetto 31]

Stamford Mayor Answers Fire Plan Questions

by Anthony Buzzeo

Daily Stamford

11/29/11

http://www.thedailystamford.com/news/stamford-mayor-answers-fire-plan-questions

[Bnechis 3,961]

Insurance would be a part of the operating expenses of the department as they currently are and always have been. I must admit that I do not have that information available in front of me, nor can I easily aquire it at present due to the constraints of my employment. Thank you for pointing it out.

You misunderstood my point on insurance. I was refering to the investment that each property owner makes on their property insurance. The insurance industry credits each on-duty (in the fire station) firefighter as 1 fire fighter and any on-call (responding from anywhere but the fire station) as 17 - 33% of one firefighter. So you need at least 100 volunteers to equal 33 career personnel. Since premiums are based in part on this, and in a community like Stamford we are talking hundreeds of millions spent on insuring private property, you must consider the potential savings that one staffing method has over another.

[Guest truck1234]

What is the pop of Stanford and howmany calls do the do a year?

[IzzyEng4 427]

What is the pop of Stanford and howmany calls do the do a year?

Population 122,867 in 2010 census. Information according to the CT Dept. Pub Health.: http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/hisr/hcqsar/population/pdf/pop_towns2010.pdf

Stamford is the fourth in size in terms of population: 1-Bridgeport, 2-Hartford, 3- New Haven.

Edited November 30, 2011 by IzzyEng4

[FFPCogs 863]

You misunderstood my point on insurance. I was refering to the investment that each property owner makes on their property insurance. The insurance industry credits each on-duty (in the fire station) firefighter as 1 fire fighter and any on-call (responding from anywhere but the fire station) as 17 - 33% of one firefighter. So you need at least 100 volunteers to equal 33 career personnel. Since premiums are based in part on this, and in a community like Stamford we are talking hundreeds of millions spent on insuring private property, you must consider the potential savings that one staffing method has over another.

Thanks I stand corrected.

[FFPCogs 863]

I'm aware of you thoughts on integration. You were specifically addressing the expansion of SFRD and appeared to be of the opinion that the money spent on additional career staffing would be better spent on volunteer incentives, however failed to address the whole issue in question. I was more or less speaking to that oversight.

I do believe the money would be better spent on volunteers and would achieve the kind of integration I have repeatedly advanced here. Why? Because the cost would be far less than the cost of the minimum 40 new SFRD personnel in question, in fact it would be less than the cost of one single career company, and that integration you seem to be concerned with is a key part of that program as well.

I'm really not following this "reliance on the volunteers" theme you've got going on here. It's my understanding that the SFRD "expansion" plan does not eliminate the volunteers. Regardless of one's personal feelings on the matter, the volunteers still had a role in the plan. It would appear to me that since the SFRD plan proposed "expansion" without an increase in career personnel, then there was intention to substantially rely on the volunteers in some fashion. So, I'm not clear about the concern over still needing volunteer assistance even after adding 40 career personnel since it appeared that they were going to be used anyway.

Then maybe you do not understand that should the "Brown plan" be implemented there is the very real probability that there will be no more volunteers (or at best not an adequate number) or their attendant equipment, apparatus and properties within 3- 5 years for SFRD to rely on. What then? Only one option...raise taxes to hire and purchase more. So that hypothetical 2 million goes up even more very quickly indeed. And you can say all you want about a lack of dedication of volunteers that would quit because they "didn't get their way". But in light of the fact that under this proposed plan they would be left with no representation, no districts, no collective voice and would always come second in terms of budget ect. to the needs and demands of the union, with I might add no recourse to address such a situation, is there any wonder why. Plus as history has clearly shown, in most instances where this type of forced "integration" has occured the volunteer sector as an effective firefighting component has disappeared in relatively short order. The concern is very real one and it is so for valid and historically proven reasons.

Hope this helps

Cogs

Edited November 30, 2011 by FFPCogs

[NurseMedic 15]

As I see it to fully cover the entire City inclusive of the current VF districts would require the following bare bones minimum additions to SFRD:

Long Ridge: 2 additional FF per staion per shift for a total of 16

2 ffs x 2 stations x 4shifts = 16

One additional Truck Company which, although I believe it would be pushing it, I'll keep within the Capt's parameter of "back-up rescue tools could be accommodated to any Truck Company". That's another 16

4 ffs x 4 shifts = 16

plus another Deputy and their aide that's another 8

2 ff x 4 shifts = 8

So at a bare minimum we're looking 40 additional personnel.

For the purposes of this discussion and simplicity's sake I'll keep it to just new FF salary even though the fact is the price tag would be substantially higher with Company officers depending on rank and the Deputy/aide. I'll also throw in the rigs and stations at no cost, we'll just assume that these personell will be riding existing rigs out of exisiting VF stations to simplify it even further:

A first year SFRD FF makes a base salary of just over $48,000 annually but we'll just round off to 48K for simplicity again to illustrate the point.

48,000 x the standard 30%($14,400) in benefits = $62,400 annually.

Ok so $62,400 x 40 = $2,496,000 but as we all know the actual number is substantially higher.

The point here is, that absolute bare minimum of $2,000,000 plus could be used to fund a number of programs to recruit and retain volunteers while mainaining SFRDs current ranks...it then becomes a matter of distributing those career and volunteer personnel effectively to best serve the needs of the community as a whole. Everyone knows my theory on how best to achieve that, but there is still a window of opportunity (at least hypothetically) to explore others...give it your best shot based on the $2,496,000.

I have no dog in this fight, I'm just confused (my baseline, but moreso than usual )

What you state above actually seems better than the proposed plan. Full disclosure, in case it isn't already painfully obvious, I'm a complete outsider with little understanding of the fire service, even less understanding of the backstory, and even, even less understanding of operating budgets, overhead, etc.

If someone would kindly provide some bipartisan education, it would be greatly appreciated. I apologize in advance if this has been covered in the past 80-ish pages

From The Advocate

The five-year contract before the board costs $8.6 million in its first year, increasing to $9.1 million in its fifth and final year. The city will pay for the contract through fire protection taxes in volunteer fire districts, amounting to a $6.8 million increase to the city operating budget.

The bulk of the operating costs come from salaries and benefits for the proposed department's 59 employees, which include 10 firefighters already working at the Long Ridge Fire Co. The department's board of directors would hire a full-time chief at a $125,000 base salary with a head fire marshal earning $106,526. Twenty-eight firefighters would earn $45,182 each, while drivers would earn $55,917. The new department also expects to hire 10 transfers from Stamford Fire & Rescue at base salaries of $72,500.

Read more: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Pavia-discloses-details-on-fire-plan-2294255.php#ixzz1f9CjKNmz

[FFPCogs 863]

I have no dog in this fight, I'm just confused (my baseline, but moreso than usual )

What you state above actually seems better than the proposed plan. Full disclosure, in case it isn't already painfully obvious, I'm a complete outsider with little understanding of the fire service, even less understanding of the backstory, and even, even less understanding of operating budgets, overhead, etc.

If someone would kindly provide some bipartisan education, it would be greatly appreciated. I apologize in advance if this has been covered in the past 80-ish pages

From The Advocate

Here's the deal from my personal perspective. Niether plan adequately supports the volunteer sector and as such I am a vocal..maybe the most vocal...proponent for the development of a third cooperatively developed option that realistically addresses the needs of, perfrormance of, and costs of each sector and then integrates them wholly and in a mutually beneficial, representative and cost effective fashion to best serve the community we are all charged with protecting.

The 40 additional SFRD personnel scenario was to illustrate what the bare minimum hypothetical costs of SFRD providing full citywide coverage might be, and how those same funds could be used to support and enhance the volunteer sector (in conjunction with the full integration of both sectors) in a more effective way.

Cogs

[ny10570 745]

Coggs you keep on talking about alternating the money on recruitment and retention, but what programs actually attracts and retains volunteers?

In every review of these programs the results are at best inconclusive. The only effective volunteer retention program is paying them. Pay per call while effective at recruiting "volunteers" still doesn't guarantee their response. At what point its the cost not worth the uncertainty of response?

I love the volunteer fire service, and genuinely hope Stamford can maintain an integrated firefighting volunteer force (not the scene support rolls that many volunteer depts were relegated to when paid firefighters were hired). They have to be able to compete with the product offered by SFRD. If you're going to spend more money the product has to improve.

[FireMedic049 597]

I do believe the money would be better spent on volunteers and would achieve the kind of integration I have repeatedly advanced here. Why? Because the cost would be far less than the cost of the minimum 40 new SFRD personnel in question, in fact it would be less than the cost of one single career company, and that integration you seem to be concerned with is a key part of that program as well.

So then you're saying that along with the incentives comes complete integration into a single city-wide fire department under a single fire chief? I must have missed that part.

Then maybe you do not understand that should the "Brown plan" be implemented there is the very real probability that there will be no more volunteers (or at best not an adequate number) or their attendant equipment, apparatus and properties within 3- 5 years for SFRD to rely on. What then? Only one option...raise taxes to hire and purchase more. So that hypothetical 2 million goes up even more very quickly indeed. And you can say all you want about a lack of dedication of volunteers that would quit because they "didn't get their way". But in light of the fact that under this proposed plan they would be left with no representation, no districts, no collective voice and would always come second in terms of budget ect. to the needs and demands of the union, with I might add no recourse to address such a situation, is there any wonder why. Plus as history has clearly shown, in most instances where this type of forced "integration" has occured the volunteer sector as an effective firefighting component has disappeared in relatively short order. The concern is very real one and it is so for valid and historically proven reasons.

Hope this helps

Cogs

It probably wasn't clear enough, but I wasn't exclusively referring to the detail of the "Brown Plan". I was speaking to the fact that the plan does not definitively call for the elimination of the volunteers and therefore they would be present for "back up" in both scenerios.

Based on the discussions, news stories, etc, it would seem that Stamford is already lacking an "adequate" number of volunteers or at least an adequate number that routinely responds.

[FFPCogs 863]

Coggs you keep on talking about alternating the money on recruitment and retention, but what programs actually attracts and retains volunteers?

Incentive supported Volunteer night duty tours similar to those in use and successful in communities in MD, VA, PA, TX, NC, SC, AZ, CA, OR, WA, WI, and as well as the retained system in the UK and a few other I can't recall at the moment off the top of my head.

In every review of these programs the results are at best inconclusive. The only effective volunteer retention program is paying them. Pay per call while effective at recruiting "volunteers" still doesn't guarantee their response. At what point its the cost not worth the uncertainty of response?

Pay per call is one component of an overall program, Duty stipends, which requires a commitment to be in the FH for those scheduled tours,being another . Yes some may call it a "part time job" and maybe it is, but the bottom line here is that no current SFRD employees walk and the city is covered by a minimum of 4 personnel at each fire station 24/7 at a reasonable cost to the taxpayers.

I love the volunteer fire service, and genuinely hope Stamford can maintain an integrated firefighting volunteer force (not the scene support rolls that many volunteer depts were relegated to when paid firefighters were hired). They have to be able to compete with the product offered by SFRD. If you're going to spend more money the product has to improve.

Agreed performance has to improve, but with an increased demand for performance must come the means to achieve it.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

So then you're saying that along with the incentives comes complete integration into a single city-wide fire department under a single fire chief? I must have missed that part.

Then my friend I must again refer to you in jest as ye of short memory.

It probably wasn't clear enough, but I wasn't exclusively referring to the detail of the "Brown Plan". I was speaking to the fact that the plan does not definitively call for the elimination of the volunteers and therefore they would be present for "back up" in both scenerios.

While that may be so as the previous post explained the end result will most likely be no volunteers

Based on the discussions, news stories, etc, it would seem that Stamford is already lacking an "adequate" number of volunteers or at least an adequate number that routinely responds.

Fair enough hence if past practices are no longer working then new methods should be tried.

Cogs

[Geppetto 31]

City reps to discuss fire plan finances

Jeff Morganteen

Stamford Advocate

November 29, 2011

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/City-reps-to-discuss-fire-plan-finances-2309026.php

[FireMedic049 597]

Then my friend I must again refer to you in jest as ye of short memory.

I'm aware of your past statements regarding the desire for a full integration, however this current discussion did not appear to include that aspect.

While that may be so as the previous post explained the end result will most likely be no volunteers

If the SFRD plan is not going to be sufficient to meet the city-wide need and thus need to rely on the volunteers in some fashion for "back up", then there shouldn't be an end result of no volunteers unless the volunteers themselves fail to provide that "back up".

[NurseMedic 15]

Perhaps unrelated to this situation, but does this mean anything for the Stamford guys? Doesn't he hold some kind of public safety boss position there?

http://m.espn.go.com/mlb/story?storyId=7295956