Danbury Mayor Turns Down Million Dollar Firefighter Grant

[x635 4,066]

I don't know if I agree or not. With the grant, doesn't it, in the long run, actually cost the City more? The article seems filled with political arguments.

DANBURY -- Mayor Mark Boughton said Friday that he rejected a $2.1 million federal grant to hire 14 firefighters because the "legacy" costs under the fire department's old contract would be too expensive.

Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Boughton-says-no-to-firefighter-grant-3242091.php#ixzz1mPRr7w9y

[Guest ME4]

This is just the way politicians in this country do business with unions and workers.

Either accept their cuts in pay, benefits or they will screw you in other ways.

[WFDC4 32]

Danbury not the only department in CT that had to turn a SAFER grant down.

From Westportnow.com

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Finance Board: No for Now to $1.2 Million SAFER Grant

By James Lomuscio

The Westport Board of Finance unanimously agreed tonight not to support the Fire Department's acceptance of a $1.2 million federal grant to hire eight new firefighters until compromises over benefits and pensions can be reached with union officials.

Full story: http://www.westportn...on_safer_grant/

Edited February 15, 2012 by jack10562
Source Site Copyright

[fire 1 asst chief 49]

HATS OFF TO THE FIRE FIGHTERS FOR NOT SELLING OUT THEIR FUTURE BROTHERS.

SHAME ON THE COPS.

This is just the way politicians in this country do business with unions and workers.

Either accept their cuts in pay, benefits or they will screw you in other ways.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

We don't know how we're going to pay for it. Typical smoke and mirrors...you get 2 years to build up the resources to do so...and oh...the tax increase all the politicos are so in tune with the criers out there are worried about..it often amounts to the cost for a family of 4 to eat out once a year..and some of that is made up with decreases in fire insurance premiums for staffing credit.

[LEGENDARYDOM83 13]

We don't know how we're going to pay for it. Typical smoke and mirrors...you get 2 years to build up the resources to do so...and oh...the tax increase all the politicos are so in tune with the criers out there are worried about..it often amounts to the cost for a family of 4 to eat out once a year..and some of that is made up with decreases in fire insurance premiums for staffing credit.

Well said!

[ny10570 745]

Gotta play tax payers advocate. SAFER grants are great when faced with a short term financial shortages. Thats a substantial gamble saying that in two years we will be able to pay the bills on the staffing provided by SAFER and if not, pay back the last two years. The union did its job in providing alternatives to the cuts. The city is responsible for long term fiscal responsibility. If they cannot afford a certain level of staffing that is their problem. It is then the responsibility of the ff to do the best they can with the staffing they have. Can't do more with less. Hopefully the taxpayers are ready for that.

Edited February 16, 2012 by ny10570

[gamewell45 258]

Gotta play tax payers advocate. SAFER grants are great when faced with a short term financial shortages. Thats a substantial gamble saying that in two years we will be able to pay the bills on the staffing provided by SAFER and if not, pay back the last two years. The union did its job in providing alternatives to the cuts. The city is responsible for long term fiscal responsibility. If they cannot afford a certain level of staffing that is their problem. It is then the responsibility of the ff to do the best they can with the staffing they have. Can't do more with less. Hopefully the taxpayers are ready for that.

I think the mindset of many taxpayers is that they could care less about staffing, until their home catches fire and then suddenly fire staffing becomes a priority.

[JTF429 37]

Let me add a little insite to this topic that was NOT in the papers.

Local 801 has been in contract talks for about a year now. The topic of the safer grant and the employees being hired did not come on the table until the very end of negociations. The city accepted the SAFER grant a few months ago without saying anything about the new hires being under a new contract. A month before the new hires were to start the academy they all recieved letters in the mail that said their appointment was conditional on the union accepting the contract. This was never said, discussed,or even brought up to Local 801 until the very end.

The negociating committie was forced to bring a less then attractive TA back to the membership to vote on. The membership voted no. Shocker the next day the city stated they were turning down the grant. Let me give you some insight on the Pension for Danbury firefighters. They put in 5% towards their pension. O/T,Holiday pay,steipns,Uniform pay, etc is not included. They do not get time and a half for O/T just straight time. They do not get the best of anything just top step. At 27 years they can go out with 50% and full medical with no copay. THey can go out with 20 years at age 55 with 40% and full medical. Every year after 27 is 2% a year with a max of 68% I think. They can get an extra 5% Non Service releated disability. Pretty conservitive if you ask me. For an on the job career ending injury it would be 66 2/3 tax free with full medical.

The TA wanted this for new hires. 30 year retirement,6% towards their pension,35% cost sharing for medical upon retirement,an added pay step that had them starting at 71/2% less than they were told.Taking away the escalator which means when rank and file get a raise,retiree's get one. A sliding scale that states if they are injured on duty and are forced to retire they have to pay as much as 50% of their health care preminum. Around 10,000 for anyone with 0-9 years on. If they have to go before 25 years their pension is penalized a certain percent for every year before 25.

The current rank and file and also affecting new hires. 6% into our pension, Removel of the 5% non service related disability. Sliding scale for on the job injuries by having to pay a certain percent into health care. Being penalized for going before 25 years. Best of the last three years, this means if you retire and they gave a 7% raise your last year you wouldn't get it. No 24/72 hour shifts. 0% the 1st year and 7% spread out over the next three years for rasies.

The union presented the city with a HSA for health insurance that was going to save them roughly 80,000 a year. They are planning to put civilians in Dispatch which will move them to the PD and most likely eliminate 8 dispatcher postions which get top step LT pay. The new hires would have over manned evey shift which would have elimanated most of the overtime. The firefighters have the lowest amount of sick time in the entire city. The biggest problem was not protecting the members who were hurt on the job. With all these savings and the city having the lowest rate of unemployment in CT,The safest city,you can't excpect me to belive that they couldn't afford to leave the injury language alone and at least give the new guys their escalator. Tough times ahead.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Gotta play tax payers advocate. SAFER grants are great when faced with a short term financial shortages. Thats a substantial gamble saying that in two years we will be able to pay the bills on the staffing provided by SAFER and if not, pay back the last two years. The union did its job in providing alternatives to the cuts. The city is responsible for long term fiscal responsibility. If they cannot afford a certain level of staffing that is their problem. It is then the responsibility of the ff to do the best they can with the staffing they have. Can't do more with less. Hopefully the taxpayers are ready for that.

I can also play taxpayer advocate...you get what you pay for. And if you cannot be fiscally responsible by gaining a hold of finances as a grant reduces in value over the span of 2 years...you've got bigger problems.

[SOlsonBFDL14 35]

Danbury not the only department in CT that had to turn a SAFER grant down.

Full story: http://www.westportn...on_safer_grant/

With all due respect, neither Westport nor Danbury HAD to turn the SAFER Grant down, they both CHOSE to. BIG difference!

And in the interest of full disclosure, Commissioner Fraser chose to do the same thing here.

Edited February 16, 2012 by SOlsonBFDL14