Update on Stamford Merger

[brianm1 1]

I am aware of the qualifications of one of them as for the others no I am not.

I'm sure there were candidates that would have been excellent choices and it is very possible and maybe even probable that they were in fact considered and not simply precluded. In the end though it is the Mayor's perogative to appoint who he sees fit for whatever reasons he sees fit is it not? No matter who had been chosen there would be those who would find fault with the choice especially in the climate that exists here.

It is done, time to move forward....or backwards I suppose depending on your point of view...

Cogs

Cogs, You just have the right answer to everything don't you. If the situation was different and Pavia decided to change the charter, deal with the law suites and totally abolish the volunteers it would be a done deal, yet I'm sure you would be all over the forums ramping about it. You want everyone to just simply accept the appointment of Bobby Valentine, and accept this crapy fire plan. Why? You say because "At this point it doesn't really matter because he's already been appointed" . So what your telling me is that evan though Valentine has absolutely no credentials and is very likely to be hundreds of miles away in the case of a major emergency or disaster, that people's concerns aren't valid and don't matter because he's already been appointed. You spend so much time ranting on these forums and you have all the answers to everything. Maybe Pavia should have appointed you instead of Valentine!

[Bnechis 3,961]

What I'm suggesting is that a portion of the money that is to be alloted to paying career firefighters be used to fund incentive programs.

The problem is the Mayor has already "committed" an amount of money for a set number of career positions. Changing the #'s is unlikely without "backpedeling". So that portion either means reducing the number of career positions (which appear to be insufficent to start with) or increasing the budget.

So have depts in Montgomery and PG Counties in MD, Louden County VA and one outside Killeen TX and Fort Lee NJ to name a few. There are a number of others nationwide as well. It may be that you are not looking in the right place or your criteria of success is restrictive.

My point was while a few depts have been very succsessful, over 30,000 depts have not and every major volunteer group is claiming that the VFD's are having critical shortages in personnel.

More specific to my thinking is programs that will provide staffing in each VFD house to the level of 4 personnel during the volunteer duty tour rotations. Remember also I'm not talking about 100% volunteer coverage here but rather a combination of career and volunteers to provide 24/7 365 coverage.

So you believe that 24 volunteers or 12 career & 12 volunteers on-duty is enough to cover a district of this size?

There are a number of departments nationwide that do manage to do this effectively as I have described or by combining career and volunteer personnel on every shift.

So 100's (my number) are doing well and 30,000 are not. Sounds like the challenge to do this are very steep.

My suggestion would be to do as I did, Google successful volunteer firefighter recruitment and retention programs and start dialing.

I can honestly say this was a great idea and was a very interesting. I did as you suggested (and thats why I took a few days to answer). What I found was the majority of the sites I found could be classified as follows:

1) General managment concepts of how to motivate volunteers and make them want to volunteer (great stuff, but these concepts are also true for motivating employees, sports teams, etc.). I did not find this referenced any particular depts, just general concept.

2) Depts that had had successful programs back in the 1980's and solved there manning. One of the reports talked about how depts in there area had turned it all around in 1989, but last week a fire in a 2.5 story P.D. without exposures required 27 FD's from 3 counties to get enough personnel to respond.

3) Many sites with info from 1998-2006 advising how to solve the problem with different programs. None referenced any depts that had found major success.

I was expecting to find more, but I think the symptoms are pretty universal and those that have found the cure are more likely to have something unique to the community or dept. thats driving the success.

While you are correct that there is the possibility of delays one could argue that regardless of what rig a crew responds on that potential always exists. If Engine 1 responds to a call than Engine 1's response area is no longer covered is it and another unit must take in any calls in that area right? Same for truck or rescue companies in their assigned areas. Don't the same "rules" apply with cross staffing? When a rig and crew are out of the house they are out and another must fill in right? So by always having a crew assigned to a particular type of rig the potential for failure still exists does it not? To alleviate that potential would require an enormous amount of staffing and apparatus to be available to answer every potential call always and no City has the resources to pay for that. Nor is that the intent of the standards. There is a point where a line must be drawn and the run cards assigned by what's available at any given time.

No the same rules don't apply. If you have an engine and a truck (or rescue) in each house and they are both staffed and one goes on a call, you need one rig from another station to cover. If you only have one crew and 2 rigs, everytime you have a call you need one rig from another station to respond in its place and an additional rig to cover. In this case 1 engine + 1 truck does not = 2 rigs, it equals one rig that cost 2x but only does the work of one rig. You are correct that it cost much more to properly staff a dept. and no community can afford unlimmited personnel, but there are many ways to determine proper minimum staffing based on standards and none of them count on cross staffing as a way to do anything other than cut corners.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs, You just have the right answer to everything don't you.

Do I? Gee whiz that's great to know.

If the situation was different and Pavia decided to change the charter, deal with the law suites and totally abolish the volunteers it would be a done deal, yet I'm sure you would be all over the forums ramping about it.

Yep you are 100% correct I'd be 'ramping" all about it as is my and everyone elses right to do.

You want everyone to just simply accept the appointment of Bobby Valentine, and accept this crapy fire plan.

I don't want anyone to do anything except to work together to come up with something better if they don't like it.

So what your telling me is that evan though Valentine has absolutely no credentials and is very likely to be hundreds of miles away in the case of a major emergency or disaster, that people's concerns aren't valid and don't matter because he's already been appointed.

I'm not telling you anything. I just accept the fact that the choice has been made

You spend so much time ranting on these forums and you have all the answers to everything. Maybe Pavia should have appointed you instead of Valentine!

You really think so? Wow I had no idea some of my career colleagues had such high regard for me...I'm honored by the show of support. Thanks

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

The problem is the Mayor has already "committed" an amount of money for a set number of career positions. Changing the #'s is unlikely without "backpedeling". So that portion either means reducing the number of career positions (which appear to be insufficent to start with) or increasing the budget.

An alternative option that increases the overall staffing would at least merit consideration, after that who knows?

My point was while a few depts have been very succsessful, over 30,000 depts have not and every major volunteer group is claiming that the VFD's are having critical shortages in personnel.

I never said otherwise. Most VFDs are facing serious recruitment and retention issues. I have found that only the progessive ones have any success. Those trapped by tradition and close mindedness do not. For our circumstances I think that consolidation is one part of a solution, incentives another, along with the introduction of paid staffing when and where necessary.

So you believe that 24 volunteers or 12 career & 12 volunteers on-duty is enough to cover a district of this size?

I believe that 24 guaranteed is better than 18 during the day and 12 at night that is on the table now. Under the other plan considered by the Task Force I believe the paid staffing would be distributed as such

TOR = 8: Sta.1 - one Quint, Sta. 2 - one Engine

SFCo = 4: One Engine

LRFCo = 8: One Engine in each station

BFD = 0: 0 apparatus

for a grand total of 20 guaranteed on duty FFs in Vollywood. How is this better? And where do the Truck and Rescue Co.s come from in light of the fact that SFRD would be reduced by 1 Truck Co?

So 100's (my number) are doing well and 30,000 are not. Sounds like the challenge to do this are very steep.

Challenge is putting it mildly. Make no mistake I'm fully aware of the potential for failure, but I'm also fully aware that there is also the potential for success...the only way to know is to try because "failure to try guarantees only one thing...failure".

I can honestly say this was a great idea and was a very interesting. I did as you suggested (and thats why I took a few days to answer). What I found was the majority of the sites I found could be classified as follows:

1) General managment concepts of how to motivate volunteers and make them want to volunteer (great stuff, but these concepts are also true for motivating employees, sports teams, etc.). I did not find this referenced any particular depts, just general concept.

2) Depts that had had successful programs back in the 1980's and solved there manning. One of the reports talked about how depts in there area had turned it all around in 1989, but last week a fire in a 2.5 story P.D. without exposures required 27 FD's from 3 counties to get enough personnel to respond.

3) Many sites with info from 1998-2006 advising how to solve the problem with different programs. None referenced any depts that had found major success.

I was expecting to find more, but I think the symptoms are pretty universal and those that have found the cure are more likely to have something unique to the community or dept. thats driving the success.

I found that by calling some Dept.s that were referenced such as Rockville MD and Louden County VA, coupled with the interaction I had with FFs from these area as well as others while working overseas I have been able to find some successful programs. Some of these have led me to other successful ones. In all fairness though there have been many that have had only limited if any success, but it is the successful ones that should be emulated if possible.

No the same rules don't apply. If you have an engine and a truck (or rescue) in each house and they are both staffed and one goes on a call, you need one rig from another station to cover. If you only have one crew and 2 rigs, everytime you have a call you need one rig from another station to respond in its place and an additional rig to cover. In this case 1 engine + 1 truck does not = 2 rigs, it equals one rig that cost 2x but only does the work of one rig. You are correct that it cost much more to properly staff a dept. and no community can afford unlimmited personnel, but there are many ways to determine proper minimum staffing based on standards and none of them count on cross staffing as a way to do anything other than cut corners.

OK I stand corrected, thank you. Unfortunately Stamford is not in the position to staff 2 rigs per station citywide, or even outside of the current 4 downtown at this time. What then will allow for an acceptable minimum response of men and material to an alarm other than utilizing the resources available as I have described? As we see above the other option does not even provide the bare minimum of 24 on duty "up North" . Nor does that option take into account the very real potential of having those resources committed outside of their response areas on a regular basis i.e. Engine 6 due to the fact that 2 of the 4 downtown stations referenced above will become one unit stations.

Cogs

Edited January 14, 2011 by FFPCogs

[gamewell45 258]

Who exactly is the "employer" for the "Long Ridge Paid Drivers Association"? It would seem that it would be the fire company itself since they are being sued for the wages. So how are they getting around federal labor laws prohibiting volunteering for your employer if they are serving as volunteer officers in that same department?

I'm not defending them, but there are some people who don't believe that the Federal or State Government should be able to tell them what to do in their spare time.

[Alpinerunner 61]

If the paid members are also volunteering in the same dept, the dept or the "new" consolidated VFD had better put some additional funds aside, so that after this legal action is resolved they will have the money to pay the additional OT that they will be slapped with. UNder the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act. Career personnel volunteering for the same employeer are entitled to compensation (ot) for all hours worked (including those as a volunteer). Montgomery County Maryland, found this out the hard way, when 1 member complained, they had to pay all of them and it was in the millions.

Not to worry, this is the opposite of how I said all the other combination departments worked, and how the consolidated department will operate. I just said LRFC is the exception.

[CTFF 65]

I'm not defending them, but there are some people who don't believe that the Federal or State Government should be able to tell them what to do in their spare time.

Very true about people's feelings toward the federal government and what people feel is right. It seems to me this is a pretty clear cut case of violating federal law. It's seems in the maryland case one firefighter brought the case and all the firefighters who "volunteered" got paid for it. Is there one guy in long ridge who maybe didn't plan for his retirement and see this as a way to cash in? Maybe a past disgruntled employee of LRFCO would consider bringing suit. I just wonder how this will all play out when there is a new taxing district and more revenue to pay these guys.

[SFRD372 43]

The bottom line in this entire "Merger" is personalities, not public safety. The volunteer chiefs ( who are elected by a popularity vote, not credentials) cant stand the fact that they might not be able to issue an order! That's ridiculous......working at Eng. 8 &9 and being stationed at Eng. 7 for a few years there were many times that we followed orders from volunteer Chiefs! Remove the volunteer chief's from LRFCo. TRFD, and Springdale and things would be fine! Have you ever worked with any of them? It's better than any Barnum & Bailey side show! All they are interested in saying is 711, 611 and 511 "are command".....Many, many times they have made the "wrong" decision...who do they answer to? No one! Make some of the bonehead calls that they made in SFRD and you would be looking at a few days off without pay! The volunteer firefighting forces (firefighters) are great people. Do what you do best! Continue to VOLUNTEER! Stop all this nonsense of "we know how to manage paid staff"...concentrate on managing your Volunteer staff. Develop more volunteer drivers.....what good is Rescue 66 responding to every call in TRFD. Get these volunteers out there as qualified drivers on engines, trucks and tankers! Over the past 10 years the volunteer departments wanted noting more than have the City take over the paid staff. And thats what happened..starting with Springdale over 13 years ago. Chief John Hoyt had the right idea. The total protection of his district and citizens was in jeopardy. He did what he thought best( as did the entire company by vote at a meeting). Everything was going smoothly there. Qualified volunteers were permitted to ride on Engine 7. When Chief Hoyt passed away things changed. It's all about personalities! Since Chief Fahan took over there has been nothing but problems between volunteers and career staff. Doesn't that make you stop and think? Could it be 511?? I sure think so! Belltown has the right idea...continue to volunteer in the great fashion that they have for years! They never, ever create a problem with career vs. volunteer! Perhaps the other remaining 3 volunteer departments should follow by example with Belltown!

[helicopper 1,050]

Just because it will take too long to go through the 1100 posts over 28 pages to find out if this has been asked and answered...

Is there any principal in this debate (City Officials, SFRD, Union, Volunteer FDs, Taxpayers) who is against a single consolidated, combination department?

[FD828 77]

I think all parties involved would be willing to consolidate into 1 department except for 1 major sticking point...... who will be in charge. Volunteers don't want to give it up, career staff doesn't want to take orders from volunteers that may not be qualified for said position. No training records for any volunteer firefighters or chief officers have ever been turned over even though they have repeatedly been asked for. How do you blame the career staff for not wanting the volunteers to run a fire when you cannot even confirm if they are capable of doing so? In the same respect can't blame the volunteers for not wanting to change the way they have been doing things from the beginning of time, but we are talking about peoples lives.

[Guest jfire02]

Hey, did you hear that if the Jets win the Super Bowl, Mayor Bloomberg is hiring Rex Ryan to replace Comm. Sal Cassano......Check out his qualifications....Right up there with Bobby V's....Just sayin'

Hey Mike... Remember Bobby V didnt ever win the World Series so Stamford will on take Rex Ryan if he's the losing coach.

[dragonrescue 28]

Hey Mike... Remember Bobby V didnt ever win the World Series so Stamford will on take Rex Ryan if he's the losing coach.

Now that makes sense....hmmmmmmm

[Bnechis 3,961]

Not to worry, this is the opposite of how I said all the other combination departments worked, and how the consolidated department will operate. I just said LRFC is the exception.

I understand, my point was that the financial liability will move forward onto any new dept. and it will include all volunteer hours for all paid employee's not just anyone how might complain.

[mstrang1 213]

Someone I was speaking to earlier brought up the point that a lawsuit may constitute a lien on a corporation, and that the status or affiliations of a corporation cannot be changed while a lien is being held on that corporation. Anyone have any knowledge of this? It is way above my pay grade.

[helicopper 1,050]

So, in a perfect Stamford, there would be one combination FD with a single, qualified chief and officers would be both career and volunteer who have all received (and documented) training and experience approrpriate to their positions.

Has this been proposed anywhere officially?

[Alpinerunner 61]

So, in a perfect Stamford, there would be one combination FD with a single, qualified chief and officers would be both career and volunteer who have all received (and documented) training and experience approrpriate to their positions.

Has this been proposed anywhere officially?

That is an ideal situation, yes. But the Devil is in the details. I don't think the two forces could be entirely equal, or else you would have a command problem at all levels.

The fear of the volunteers is that if SFRD/Union had their way in the 1 department deal, there would be lots of career manpower in the northern districts (fully staffed rescue, ladder, engines) and little room (both operationally and physically) for the volunteers. The volunteers would be relegated to the 4th or 5th seat on the engine, and be useless for anything but structure fires, and even then, they would be bottle changers. The system would end up like Danbury or New Canaan, where the volunteers do very little. Combine that with the "anti-volunteer" nature of some of the people downtown (it can also be seen in this thread by some, and by certain groups who sport NVA stickers on their helmets), and you would understand that this feel is valid. Due to the charter and past legal rulings, ther VFDs would be in their right to sue for control back.

On the flip side: if the volunteers have the "majority" of the power in a 1 department deal, and had the 3 SFRD guys on a rig during the day, and 2 at night (as is planned), the concerns are that the union wouldn't let them swap rigs, leaving the north either without a ladder or rescue. Due to union contracts, the union would be in their right to file suit due to not meeting minimum manning, and they won't operate without their own Chief in command. The other valid concern is the qualifications, ability, and availability of the volunteers.

I'm not meaning to slam anyone, just trying to give a honest assessment of the problems with a fully integrated department. If this plan goes through, the new guys hired would KNOW what they are getting into, they would know that they NEED to work with the volunteers and it would be a true combination department. Not everyone wants to do that. I know that if this were my career, I would want to do the work myself, and get the rewarding feeling myself, not let someone else do it. That is why I'm not looking for one of these positions, so I really do understand where some of the current career guys are coming from.

Is there a possible solution? After being on the ground in this situation for a while, I would say yes. I have had a lot of positive interactions with the career guys and "on the ground" everything is pretty good and the majority of the SFRD guys are respectful. It would take bending from both sides; the union might have to bend and allow rig swapping, they might have to bend minimum manning and generally leave room for the volunteers. The volunteers might have to give up Chief authority, and have captains and lieutenants command only volunteer personnel.

I hope this at least gives you some insight into the complexity of the issue.

[mstrang1 213]

On the flip side: if the volunteers have the "majority" of the power in a 1 department deal, and had the 3 SFRD guys on a rig during the day, and 2 at night (as is planned), the concerns are that the union wouldn't let them swap rigs, leaving the north either without a ladder or rescue. Due to union contracts, the union would be in their right to file suit due to not meeting minimum manning, and they won't operate without their own Chief in command. The other valid concern is the qualifications, ability, and availability of the volunteers.

Just wanted to clarify, under the proposed plan, the "paid guys" would be employees of ironically named "Stamford Volunteer Fire Department (with 61 employees)", NOT SFRD. The union would have nothing to do with these paid volunteers under the new plan, except when they need mutual aid and the Mayor says that the union members will be right there to pick up the slack.

[Alpinerunner 61]

Just wanted to clarify, under the proposed plan, the "paid guys" would be employees of ironically named "Stamford Volunteer Fire Department (with 61 employees)", NOT SFRD.

Correct, I was saying that because under this theoratical 1 department plan, all career staff would be SFRD.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Alpinerunner

[FD828 77]

That is an ideal situation, yes. But the Devil is in the details. I don't think the two forces could be entirely equal, or else you would have a command problem at all levels.

The fear of the volunteers is that if SFRD/Union had their way in the 1 department deal, there would be lots of career manpower in the northern districts (fully staffed rescue, ladder, engines) and little room (both operationally and physically) for the volunteers. The volunteers would be relegated to the 4th or 5th seat on the engine, and be useless for anything but structure fires, and even then, they would be bottle changers. The system would end up like Danbury or New Canaan, where the volunteers do very little. Combine that with the "anti-volunteer" nature of some of the people downtown (it can also be seen in this thread by some, and by certain groups who sport NVA stickers on their helmets), and you would understand that this feel is valid. Due to the charter and past legal rulings, ther VFDs would be in their right to sue for control back.

On the flip side: if the volunteers have the "majority" of the power in a 1 department deal, and had the 3 SFRD guys on a rig during the day, and 2 at night (as is planned), the concerns are that the union wouldn't let them swap rigs, leaving the north either without a ladder or rescue. Due to union contracts, the union would be in their right to file suit due to not meeting minimum manning, and they won't operate without their own Chief in command. The other valid concern is the qualifications, ability, and availability of the volunteers.

I'm not meaning to slam anyone, just trying to give a honest assessment of the problems with a fully integrated department. If this plan goes through, the new guys hired would KNOW what they are getting into, they would know that they NEED to work with the volunteers and it would be a true combination department. Not everyone wants to do that. I know that if this were my career, I would want to do the work myself, and get the rewarding feeling myself, not let someone else do it. That is why I'm not looking for one of these positions, so I really do understand where some of the current career guys are coming from.

Is there a possible solution? After being on the ground in this situation for a while, I would say yes. I have had a lot of positive interactions with the career guys and "on the ground" everything is pretty good and the majority of the SFRD guys are respectful. It would take bending from both sides; the union might have to bend and allow rig swapping, they might have to bend minimum manning and generally leave room for the volunteers. The volunteers might have to give up Chief authority, and have captains and lieutenants command only volunteer personnel.

I hope this at least gives you some insight into the complexity of the issue.

It's too bad more people don't think this way. I do have to disagree, having a volunteer in the 4th or 5th seat would be anything but useless. The more hands the better. Especially at a fire. I don't think the rig swapping is a good idea either. For instance, when we come on shift, we put our own mask/regulator on an SCBA that we check, we hang our accountability tag, set up the remaining gear on the machine and of course check all equipment. If we were to swap machines for every call, we would have to get in, take out our tag, mask, personal equipment and then put it on another machine. Not to mention not being signed on to the CAD. Pretty time consuming getting out the door. Not to mention the possibility of forgetting something important. And this is just 1 reason not to jump rigs. Or maybe the career machines in North Stamford would be Quints? Then they could operate as either a truck or an engine depending on the call? Or the powers that be should decide what units will be staffed by the career staff and the volunteers man the other equipment. If they are there with a full crew, they go in service and are added to the CAD. When they leave they go out of service and are removed from the CAD. The volunteers could staff their equipment whenever they wanted. The career staff would remain 24/7, the volunteers would be an added bonus if you will. If they go into service with a truck, then they would be dispatched if they were the closest truck company. (not in addition to another truck) So there would be no "secondary" roles. They would be the 1st due truck on whatever the call is.

I do agree that command is the main issue. On the scene the guys doing the work, do the work well and they do it together without issue for the most part.

Edited January 14, 2011 by FD828

[Alpinerunner 61]

Or the powers that be should decide what units will be staffed by the career staff and the volunteers man the other equipment. If they are there with a full crew, they go in service and are added to the CAD. When they leave they go out of service and are removed from the CAD. The volunteers could staff their equipment whenever they wanted. The career staff would remain 24/7, the volunteers would be an added bonus if you will. If they go into service with a truck, then they would be dispatched if they were the closest truck company. (not in addition to another truck) So there would be no "secondary" roles. They would be the 1st due truck on whatever the call is.

I do agree that command is the main issue. On the scene the guys doing the work, do the work well and they do it together without issue for the most part.

I like this idea! I've always thought it would be great if maybe ST1 TOR volunteers could man 1 engine, ST1 career guys take another engine, Belltown take their truck, and there you go, you have your alarm investigation crew for a call on TOR ST1 side, and you've left the truck available downtown, and the engine available on TOR ST2 side.

[FD828 77]

I like this idea! I've always thought it would be great if maybe ST1 TOR volunteers could man 1 engine, ST1 career guys take another engine, Belltown take their truck, and there you go, you have your alarm investigation crew for a call on TOR ST1 side, and you've left the truck available downtown, and the engine available on TOR ST2 side.

Now how do we get there?????? Maybe Bobby V has the answers!

[FFPCogs 863]

So, in a perfect Stamford, there would be one combination FD with a single, qualified chief and officers would be both career and volunteer who have all received (and documented) training and experience approrpriate to their positions.

Has this been proposed anywhere officially?

It was proposed before the Fire Service Task Force last year, although since it was proposed by 2 FFs from BFD and not a Chief I don't know how "official" that can be considered. But I know for a fact that it was proposed publically because I was one of the 2 that proposed it.

Matter of fact I've been proposing it here for 2 years!!!

Cogs

Edited January 15, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Geppetto 31]

In regards to appointing a qualified Director, the adminstration put out this announcement a while back -

Is EVERYONE'S memory that short?

Director of Public Safety.doc

[Geppetto 31]

No responses?

It's tough when there is no conjecture, theory or opinion to give rebuttal to. This is a political payback; fact.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Resources:

GFD - E-32, E-34 T-31

Springdale - E-52, E-53 R-54

TORFD - E-61, E-62, E-63, E-64 T-67 R-66 Tanker 68

LRFD - E-71, E-72, E-73, E-74 Tanker 78

Based on the above, SVFD would have 12 engines, 2 trucks, 2 rescues and 2 tankers out of 6 stations.

If as suggested each station would have 4 FF's which means 12 rigs (66% are not staffed) even with the concept of cross staffing you can sell 6 rigs.

More importantly what rigs are needed to respond? Particularly if this plan goes thru, I suspect SFRD will pull its units out of No. Stamford.

So what rigs need to respond to a reported unknown fire in No. Stamford? I'll break it down into the northern and southern portions of No. Stamford. My understanding is the northern 1/2 is generally without a municipal water supply (read: no hydrants) and the southern 1/2 has hydrants.

Stamford VFDs Map.pdf

Northern SVFD:

2 engines (1 attack and 1 supply)

2 tankers (6,000 gallons minimum on wheels)

1 ladder

1 chief

These 5 units would need to be dispatched from the 4 closest stations. Which if staffed as suggested cant be done. The other 2 stations are to far (based on ISO & NFPA) to respond in the initial response. They would each need to send 1 rig if declared a working fire (FAST & Source/fill site unit)

To make up this staffing configuration:

LRFD Sta#1: Tanker (2 ff)

LRFD Sta#2: Engine (4 ff)

TORFD Sta#1: Tanker (2 ff) Ladder (4 ff)

TORFD Sta#2: Engine (4 ff)

Southern SVFD:

2 engines (1 attack and 1 supply)

1 ladder

1 rescue

1 chief

To make up this staffing configuration:

TORFD Sta#1: Ladder (4 ff)

TORFD Sta#2: Engine (4 ff)

GFD: Engine (4 ff)

SFD: Rescue (4 ff)

Northern units would be needed for FAST.

Note: these layouts only allow for a 1st alarm assignment. M/A and/or call back would be needed beyond that.

Under the other plan considered by the Task Force I believe the paid staffing would be distributed as such

TOR = 8: Sta.1 - one Quint, Sta. 2 - one Engine

SFCo = 4: One Engine

LRFCo = 8: One Engine in each station

for a grand total of 20 guaranteed on duty FFs in Vollywood.

So GFD goes empty? Based on this who brings the water?

[CTFF 65]

GFD is not part of the mayors plan in regards to SVFD. Engine 6 from SFRD would still be stationed there and stamford would still have 3 fire dept's.

[dragonrescue 28]

Based on the above, SVFD would have 12 engines, 2 trucks, 2 rescues and 2 tankers out of 6 stations.

If as suggested each station would have 4 FF's which means 12 rigs (66% are not staffed) even with the concept of cross staffing you can sell 6 rigs.

More importantly what rigs are needed to respond? Particularly if this plan goes thru, I suspect SFRD will pull its units out of No. Stamford.

So what rigs need to respond to a reported unknown fire in No. Stamford? I'll break it down into the northern and southern portions of No. Stamford. My understanding is the northern 1/2 is generally without a municipal water supply (read: no hydrants) and the southern 1/2 has hydrants.

Stamford VFDs Map.pdf

Northern SVFD:

2 engines (1 attack and 1 supply)

2 tankers (6,000 gallons minimum on wheels)

1 ladder

1 chief

These 5 units would need to be dispatched from the 4 closest stations. Which if staffed as suggested cant be done. The other 2 stations are to far (based on ISO & NFPA) to respond in the initial response. They would each need to send 1 rig if declared a working fire (FAST & Source/fill site unit)

To make up this staffing configuration:

LRFD Sta#1: Tanker (2 ff)

LRFD Sta#2: Engine (4 ff)

TORFD Sta#1: Tanker (2 ff) Ladder (4 ff)

TORFD Sta#2: Engine (4 ff)

Southern SVFD:

2 engines (1 attack and 1 supply)

1 ladder

1 rescue

1 chief

To make up this staffing configuration:

TORFD Sta#1: Ladder (4 ff)

TORFD Sta#2: Engine (4 ff)

GFD: Engine (4 ff)

SFD: Rescue (4 ff)

Northern units would be needed for FAST.

Note: these layouts only allow for a 1st alarm assignment. M/A and/or call back would be needed beyond that.

So GFD goes empty? Based on this who brings the water?

Barry,

You do nice work, but don't waste your time. The new Public Safety Director and The Mayor has it all figured out......along with Cogs and a few other wizards......I can hardly wait for the responses to your layout....hehehehehe

[FFPCogs 863]

No responses?

It's tough when there is no conjecture, theory or opinion to give rebuttal to. This is a political payback; fact.

Since the position was established under Malloy no Public Safety Director has been a public safety professional and all have been political appointments. From all I can gather none of them faced the ire seen towards this one though.

Cogs

Edited January 17, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Barry,

You do nice work, but don't waste your time. The new Public Safety Director and The Mayor has it all figured out......along with Cogs and a few other wizards......I can hardly wait for the responses to your layout....hehehehehe

Good work indeed and useful to boot, Thanks Bnechis, your work will not be in vain, it will be a great help in developing a response matrix for the "new" FD. Unfortunately though no plan yet proposed distributes the available resources to meet NFPA or ISO standards effectively.

Cogs

Edited January 17, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

FFPCogs, on 13 January 2011 - 10:11 PM, said:

Under the other plan considered by the Task Force I believe the paid staffing would be distributed as such

TOR = 8: Sta.1 - one Quint, Sta. 2 - one Engine

SFCo = 4: One Engine

LRFCo = 8: One Engine in each station

for a grand total of 20 guaranteed on duty FFs in Vollywood.

So GFD goes empty? Based on this who brings the water?

You'll have to ask someone downtown as this distribution is the SFRD plan. And it is BFD not GFD that goes "empty".

Cogs

Edited January 17, 2011 by FFPCogs