Update on Stamford Merger

[FireMedic049 597]

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

I'm in no way advocating making unilateral changes that violate current "law". I just find it a little disconcerting that the administration appears to be limiting itself to options within the current framework rather than truly considering making changes to it in order to enact what would arguably be better long term options for the city and its residents.

[CTFF 65]

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

For the most part I think only the people who have advised the mayor and the Mayor himself are way outside the lines in beliefs on how the fire service should run.

Even though your proposed 12 hour tour seems very generous in terms of promotions and avoiding layoffs, I still see it as a logistical nightmare. SFRD does not work 12 hour tours now, we don't have shifts that start or end 7.

If career staffing city wide can be achieved ( under the proposed SFRD plan) why not keep the same schedule? Staffing would simply increase at night when the the volunteers would man other rigs and be dispatched under a closest unit response? Of course any time the volunteers have the man power to staff a rig it gets updated into the cad. This way there is a minimum guaranteed response at all times and the staffing increases in the city as volunteers are available.

[JohnnyOV 2]

Of course any time the volunteers have the man power to staff a rig it gets updated into the cad. This way there is a minimum guaranteed response at all times and the staffing increases in the city as volunteers are available.

Pretty sure this is how it works down in Prince George County, and it works very well....

[Alpinerunner 61]

So if there are 2 qualified volunteers at the station, they don't get to fill out the 3-4 man career rig? What if the call is right down the street from a volunteer's house? Do they have to drive past the incident to go to the station? Wait for a volunteer rig at the scene? Or can they grab an airpack and tools off the career rig and go to work?

This is something that will have to be ironed out, and will be a point of contention. Many times I've heard a career officer tell a volunteer "Don't touch my [hose] [irons] [can]." They may be right to say that, but it's not how it worked when the volunteers worked with the old career FFs in the volunteer stations. In any future merger/solution, I don't think separating the volunteers and career firefighters to the degree that they have to ride in separate rigs is a good one.

[CTFF 65]

So if there are 2 qualified volunteers at the station, they don't get to fill out the 3-4 man career rig? What if the call is right down the street from a volunteer's house? Do they have to drive past the incident to go to the station? Wait for a volunteer rig at the scene? Or can they grab an airpack and tools off the career rig and go to work?

This is something that will have to be ironed out, and will be a point of contention. Many times I've heard a career officer tell a volunteer "Don't touch my [hose] [irons] [can]." They may be right to say that, but it's not how it worked when the volunteers worked with the old career FFs in the volunteer stations. In any future merger/solution, I don't think separating the volunteers and career firefighters to the degree that they have to ride in separate rigs is a good one.

When volunteers are at a station, don't have a full crew and are qualified to ride out I would expect them to do so.

My issues with preventing POV response is to ensure accountability, I believe it would be very easy to not know who is on scene. This is a safety issue in my mind. I'm sure there are systems out their that address this issue I'm not aware of.

No, I won't give up the tool I carried off the rig. I may need it later and you shouldn't ask for it. Grab one of the rig as you head in, it's a great habit.

We need to reduce the amount we separate ourselves if we are trying to build one fire dept.

again this is all hypothetical, the powers that be at 888 don't want one FD.

[mstrang1 213]

Another issue with volunteers bring their POV to a call is clogging up a fire scene. I'm sure more senior volunteers know to park out of the way, but younger, less senior guys may park in a very inconvenient spot. Of course, as CTFF said, accountability is key as well.

In addition, when the career guys worked in the volunteer stations, they were theoretically employees of said volunteer company. Now they are not employed by them anymore, nor are they even stationed in the same building. Believe me, that trailer and a spare room at 684 are not optimal fire station spaces. We are not the ones keeping us out of TOR 1 and 2. I try to work as well as I can with the volunteers that work in the same district as me. As I have said in the past, do your job, be accountable, be professional and everything will be okay. Another suggestion that has been brought up in the past is some way for me to know the level of training of who is coming into that fire with me and my crew. Whether it be a different color helmet plaque, a mark on your jacket, etc.

[sqd47bfd 20]

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?

I guess you don't understand that there are more reasons for differing tax rates than your pet topic, the fire service. Do a little research about how mill rates are set and you wouldn't make silly statements about how the citizens are treated with regard to taxes.

[FFPCogs 863]

For the most part I think only the people who have advised the mayor and the Mayor himself are way outside the lines in beliefs on how the fire service should run.

Even though your proposed 12 hour tour seems very generous in terms of promotions and avoiding layoffs, I still see it as a logistical nightmare. SFRD does not work 12 hour tours now, we don't have shifts that start or end 7.

If career staffing city wide can be achieved ( under the proposed SFRD plan) why not keep the same schedule? Staffing would simply increase at night when the the volunteers would man other rigs and be dispatched under a closest unit response? Of course any time the volunteers have the man power to staff a rig it gets updated into the cad. This way there is a minimum guaranteed response at all times and the staffing increases in the city as volunteers are available.

I believe the Mayor has chosen what he believes to be the best option under our rather unique circumstances, but like any such choice there will always be detractors. For now as you said 888 has put forth what is the only option on the table for consideration by the BoR, it is now up to them to decide. And although they also have been given an overview of the SFRD plan, it is currently not open for a vote. IMO the SFRD plan is itself in need of a reassesment as it basically does away with volunteers no matter what spin is put on it otherwise.The point of our tete a tetes here is that there does exist the possibility that niether the SVFD plan or the SFRD plan would pass the BoR. If that does occur I happen to believe that it is in everyone's best interest to have laid the groundwork for a more cooperative effort in creating a "new" plan. Our discusssions here do in fact open the door just a crack into what might be possible on that front.

I will not dispute your views on scheduling, as they are completely legitmate from your perspective, but what we must all realize is that to get a unified service first requires the unity of those who will perform the service. We can only achieve that unity of purpose when all views are given due respect and a compromise is struck. Hypothetically as an example, it may be that the work schedule is something SFRD will have to give in order to get each VFD to relinquish it's legal "fiefdom". Whatever the points may be it is evident that past practices have not worked in terms of building a unified service...force will not work now and probably won't for the foreseeable future. What then is left, only negotiation leading to compromise.

Cogs

Edited October 29, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

I believe the Mayor has chosen what he believes to be the best option under our rather unique circumstances,

Is that the best option for:

a)The Mayor (politically)

b)The Volunteers

C) The Taxpayers (In general)

d) Mrs. Smith who still does not get the response that she is intitled to

but what we must all realize is that to get a unified service first requires the unity of those who will perform the service. We can only achieve that unity of purpose when all views are given due respect and a compromise is struck.

I am sorry, but if Stamford requires everyone agreeing to play in the same sandbox and to share their toys is the stumbling block, then the taxpayers have already lost the battle and Mrs. Smith will lose the war.

UNITY OF PURPOSE IS YOU SWORE TO DO YOUR VERY BEST TO SERVE MRS. SMITH!!!!!

[CTFF 65]

I believe the Mayor has chosen what he believes to be the best option under our rather unique circumstances, but like any such choice there will always be detractors. For now as you said 888 has put forth what is the only option on the table for consideration by the BoR, it is now up to them to decide. And although they also have been given an overview of the SFRD plan, it is currently not open for a vote. IMO the SFRD plan is itself in need of a reassesment as it basically does away with volunteers no matter what spin is put on it otherwise.The point of our tete a tetes here is that there does exist the possibility that niether the SVFD plan or the SFRD plan would pass the BoR. If that does occur I happen to believe that it is in everyone's best interest to have laid the groundwork for a more cooperative effort in creating a "new" plan. Our discusssions here do in fact open the door just a crack into what might be possible on that front.

I will not dispute your views on scheduling, as they are completely legitmate from your perspective, but what we must all realize is that to get a unified service first requires the unity of those who will perform the service. We can only achieve that unity of purpose when all views are given due respect and a compromise is struck. Hypothetically as an example, it may be that the work schedule is something SFRD will have to give in order to get each VFD to relinquish it's legal "fiefdom". Whatever the points may be it is evident that past practices have not worked in terms of building a unified service...force will not work now and probably won't for the foreseeable future. What then is left, only negotiation leading to compromise.

Cogs

I'm not really sure the Mayor is a "best option" guy and I'll point out Bobby V as my prime example.

The mayor can't even get his plan out of the Public Health and Safety Committee of the BOR. The SFRD plan isn't even there, though the members are aware of it and have asked the city for the cost of it as it is written. I don't think we are close to change in the fire service in Stamford. I've said for a bit now the city needs to get everyone in the room to discuss and devise a plan. Present that plan as a unified fire service and move on. This Mayor won't do that.

I won't get into the scheduling debate of our hypothetical fire service again but I do have to ask one question.

If paid firefighters can be stationed 24/7/365 with out an increase in cost or much lower then the Mayor's plan, why remove them at night? Why not get more equipment out the door closer to the fire with full crews? Isn't that in the best interest of the public?

[FFPCogs 863]

I am sorry, but if Stamford requires everyone agreeing to play in the same sandbox and to share their toys is the stumbling block, then the taxpayers have already lost the battle and Mrs. Smith will lose the war.

UNITY OF PURPOSE IS YOU SWORE TO DO YOUR VERY BEST TO SERVE MRS. SMITH!!!!!

OK as usual it is not quite that simple. There are legalities involved, but there is also the cost to be borne by Mrs. Smith. Serving her also means doing so in a manner which won't break her bank.

So I take you believe that the SFRD plan should be adopted because it is in Mrs. Smith's best interest? Hmmm well the ideas put forth on these pages by myself and others actually INCREASE her protection well beyond the SFRD plan and do so for less money. Now I'm not a rocket scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last nite, and if you ask me a higher level of service coupled with no additional tax drain on her wallet is what really serves Mrs. Smith. BTW a review of this thread will show the numbers...feel free to look back.

UNITY OF PURPOSE IS YOU SWORE TO DO YOUR VERY BEST TO SERVE MRS. SMITH!!!!!

I had to repeat this phrase. Unity of pupose is to serve all the Mrs. Smiths and under the circumstances that exist here that means we all must compromise, not just the VFDs... and like it or not, that my friend is a fact of life!!!

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

If paid firefighters can be stationed 24/7/365 with out an increase in cost or much lower then the Mayor's plan, why remove them at night? Why not get more equipment out the door closer to the fire with full crews? Isn't that in the best interest of the public?

Yes it is and if SFRD can put at least one 4 men Engine Company in every station in Vollywood with no increase in taxes I'd seriously consider supporting it fully, unfortunately I don't see how that is possible. Under the current SFRD plan BFD is without SFRD in the house, and LR would only get 3 per station (i.e. 8 & 9) so right there that's another 24 personnel.

BFD = 4 platoons of 4 = 16 total

LR = 1 more man per station X 2 stations =2 X 4 platoons = 8 total

8+16 = 24 total

Cogs

Edited October 29, 2011 by FFPCogs

[SFRD372 43]

Every station does not need to be covered......take Belltown for a perfect example...they have never had a problem with volunteer staffing at all. They do a very good job.....Engine 1 and Engine 8 can be to Belltown's district as fast as Belltown can get their second due machine on scene. Volunteer's are needed.......keep volunteering! But I have to say that I firmly believe that the proposed "fire plan" is dead in the water!

[FireMedic049 597]

I guess you don't understand that there are more reasons for differing tax rates than your pet topic, the fire service. Do a little research about how mill rates are set and you wouldn't make silly statements about how the citizens are treated with regard to taxes.

As for why there are differing tax rates in Stamford, you'd be correct that I don't understand.

In my experiences, everywhere that I've lived has had a single tax rate for all within a specific category of property. This means that all residential SFD properties are taxed at the same rate, however the actual amount of tax paid will vary based on the value of the building/property, all commercial properties are taxed on the same basis. Additionally, the City in which I live, things like garbage fees, water & sewer fees are separate bills from my property taxes.

I'm aware of how mill rates are set so research in that area is not needed and I don't believe my statements were in any way "silly". The notion of having different tax rates within a single municipality is a concept not consistent with my experiences and given the comments about the administration trying to pay Peter with Paul's tax money, having a single tax rate citywide would make sense to me. I was not aware that part of the city does not have a municipal water system and that water & sewer fees are part of the property tax bill there.

Not sure why you felt the need to make derogatory comments towards me on the matter instead of helping me (like mstrang1 did) to understand better why multiple taxing districts in the same city may be appropriate.

[Bnechis 3,961]

So I take you believe that the SFRD plan should be adopted because it is in Mrs. Smith's best interest?

No, I see problems in that plan as well. But a lot less problems than the 2 or 3 dept plan.

I had to repeat this phrase. Unity of pupose is to serve all the Mrs. Smiths and under the circumstances that exist here that means we all must compromise, not just the VFDs... and like it or not, that my friend is a fact of life!!!

Its pretty clear that no one is willing to compromise thier position. The said fact is that the current situation in No.Stamford has already comprimised the safety of Mrs. Smith and everyone else. SFRD does not have to comprimise, since they have to do what the AHJ orders. The 2 dept. plan will not work, financally, economicly and operationally.

The number of career positions does not add up to the number of career shifts. So the proposed budget is short by millions.

The plan does not resolve the rural water needs, which will keep No. Stamford paying the highest possible insurance premiums.

The plan is to strip everything to cover a simple fire and then rely on SFRD to cover the gap.

And the plan is based on hope that the volunteers will come back and cover like it was long ago. Infact there will be even fewer, once they are hired.

[TSull 33]

Yes it is and if SFRD can put at least one 4 men Engine Company in every station in Vollywood with no increase in taxes I'd seriously consider supporting it fully, unfortunately I don't see how that is possible. Under the current SFRD plan BFD is without SFRD in the house, and LR would only get 3 per station (i.e. 8 & 9) so right there that's another 24 personnel.

BFD = 4 platoons of 4 = 16 total

LR = 1 more man per station X 2 stations =2 X 4 platoons = 8 total

8+16 = 24 total

Cogs

24 is less then the "51" needed in the mayor's plan.

[Bnechis 3,961]

24 is less then the "51" needed in the mayor's plan.

Let us not forget that the mayors plan of 54 (or 51 above) career personnel (plus Chief, & marshalls) is still short to meet its own staffing pattern.

1) 18 daytime and 12 nightime shifts averages to 15 firefighters 24 per day.

2)To cover the average 15 shift positions requires 60 personnel, but they are only hiring 54 (who figured the staffing #'s needed).

This means that each shift will be assigned 13.5 firefighters (average) to cover 15 positions. This is before any of the 13.5 firefighters are off on contractual leave (vacation, sick, personal, etc.0

So the mayor's plan needs an extra Million or so, just to cover the poor math.

[Dinosaur 844]

Don't worry - I'm more than adequately trained to fight a fire. I may be a paramedic now, but my FD career days weren't that long ago.

Lots of people are trained. But are you properly equipped for firefighting?

All these people who think they can do it all on their own are part of why we have such problems in the fire service today.

[Dinosaur 844]

Some really smart people commented in this thread but we're still fighting about nonsense. How about designing a system that will meet the minimum response standards (NFPA 1710 or 1720, or OSHA for 2 in and 2 out) with properly trained FF's regardless of their pay status?

How many years has this debate been raging? Enough already.

[FFPCogs 863]

24 is less then the "51" needed in the mayor's plan.

Niether of which helps the taxpayers of Stamford.

Better fire protection Citywide with no cost increases should be the goal, nothing less!!!

A foundation that works towards meeting that goal has graced these pages for quite some time and while still in need of work, no one has come up with a better one. I'm all for working together but the key word there is together, utilizing the assets that exist now in a more productive and efficient way, not relegating those willing to serve to a secondary status and shuffling a few paid Engine Co's around and eliminating a Truck Co thereby reducing the overall level of fire protection Citywide.

Cogs

Edited October 30, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

No, I see problems in that plan as well. But a lot less problems than the 2 or 3 dept plan.

Its pretty clear that no one is willing to compromise thier position. The said fact is that the current situation in No.Stamford has already comprimised the safety of Mrs. Smith and everyone else. SFRD does not have to comprimise, since they have to do what the AHJ orders. The 2 dept. plan will not work, financally, economicly and operationally.

The number of career positions does not add up to the number of career shifts. So the proposed budget is short by millions.

The plan does not resolve the rural water needs, which will keep No. Stamford paying the highest possible insurance premiums.

The plan is to strip everything to cover a simple fire and then rely on SFRD to cover the gap.

And the plan is based on hope that the volunteers will come back and cover like it was long ago. Infact there will be even fewer, once they are hired.

As much as this may shock you I concur with you by and large. But simply shifting a few paid Engines around and also hoping for a volunteer response or stripping additional paid units from other parts of the City to cover the gaps is also folly, is it not?

And since you threw out about the AHJ remember the VFDs currently ARE the AHJs in their specified districts and SFRD should be following what they order...using your logic that is.

Niether of the plans thus far presented to the BoR is the panacea to this ongoing dilema, ergo a new one is in order...and it should be one based in cooperation, not dictation.

Cogs

Edited October 30, 2011 by FFPCogs

[sqd47bfd 20]

As for why there are differing tax rates in Stamford, you'd be correct that I don't understand.

In my experiences, everywhere that I've lived has had a single tax rate for all within a specific category of property. This means that all residential SFD properties are taxed at the same rate, however the actual amount of tax paid will vary based on the value of the building/property, all commercial properties are taxed on the same basis. Additionally, the City in which I live, things like garbage fees, water & sewer fees are separate bills from my property taxes.

I'm aware of how mill rates are set so research in that area is not needed and I don't believe my statements were in any way "silly". The notion of having different tax rates within a single municipality is a concept not consistent with my experiences and given the comments about the administration trying to pay Peter with Paul's tax money, having a single tax rate citywide would make sense to me. I was not aware that part of the city does not have a municipal water system and that water & sewer fees are part of the property tax bill there.

Not sure why you felt the need to make derogatory comments towards me on the matter instead of helping me (like mstrang1 did) to understand better why multiple taxing districts in the same city may be appropriate.

You are making statements about taxing and the fire service in Stamford without having an understanding of the basic concepts of why the taxing districts in Stamford are set up the way they are.

Mr. Strangio was kind enough to provide you with a primer of some information to enlighten you. And he did a succinct job of giving you info you could have learned for yourself with a little time googling.

[CTFF 65]

As much as this may shock you I concur with you by and large. But simply shifting a few paid Engines around and also hoping for a volunteer response or stripping additional paid units from other parts of the City to cover the gaps is also folly, is it not?

And since you threw out about the AHJ remember the VFDs currently ARE the AHJs in their specified districts and SFRD should be following what they order...using your logic that is.

Niether of the plans thus far presented to the BoR is the panacea to this ongoing dilema, ergo a new one is in order...and it should be one based in cooperation, not dictation.

Cogs

So hiring in the area of 50 firefighters and hoping for a volunteer response is the way to go?

[FFPCogs 863]

So hiring in the area of 50 firefighters and hoping for a volunteer response is the way to go?

Wow have you not been following along these last few pages? The "way to go" is to integrate the sectors, period and niether current plan does that. It is rumored that neither will make it through the BoR in which case another "plan" will be necessary. If in fact that becomes the case what do you say we learn from the past few years and try to develop one together based, as I stated earlier, on cooperation instead of dictation?

Cogs

[Dinosaur 844]

Wow have you not been following along these last few pages? The "way to go" is to integrate the sectors, period and niether current plan does that. It is rumored that neither will make it through the BoR in which case another "plan" will be necessary. If in fact that becomes the case what do you say we learn from the past few years and try to develop one together based, as I stated earlier, on cooperation instead of dictation?

Cogs

The "way to go" is to form a single citywide fire department with a paid staff augmented by fully qualified volunteers.

"Cooperation" has gotten you nowwhere and resulted in the mess going on today. The city should dictate that everyone meet a minimum standard. Its just stupid to have different standards, different levels of response, and no accountability. There hasn't been any cooperation for years so Stamford should lead by example and coordinate the implementation of a real system for its taxpayers.

[CTFF 65]

Wow have you not been following along these last few pages? The "way to go" is to integrate the sectors, period and niether current plan does that. It is rumored that neither will make it through the BoR in which case another "plan" will be necessary. If in fact that becomes the case what do you say we learn from the past few years and try to develop one together based, as I stated earlier, on cooperation instead of dictation?

Cogs

No no, I've been following. I agree we need to integrate the sectors, we disagree on how it should be done at a staffing level. I'm glad we agree that hoping for a volunteer response isn't acceptable.

[FFPCogs 863]

The "way to go" is to form a single citywide fire department with a paid staff augmented by fully qualified volunteers.

And in very short order there will be no volunteers and it will be the taxpayers who suffer that loss acutely.

"Cooperation" has gotten you nowwhere and resulted in the mess going on today. The city should dictate that everyone meet a minimum standard. Its just stupid to have different standards, different levels of response, and no accountability. There hasn't been any cooperation for years so Stamford should lead by example and coordinate the implementation of a real system for its taxpayers.

There has been no cooperation in regards to reorganizing Stamford's fire service that's for sure and a quick review of history will illustrate what happens when the City dictates anything in this case. All career is not the answer nor is all volunteer. Paid "supported" by volunteer or volunteer "supported" by paid is not the answer. What is the answer is an integrated system whereby each sector is utilized in a fashion which will not increase expenses while still providing enough trained and qualified personnel on duty to respond citywide 24/7. This can be done in a manner which has been explained here throughout this thread. Doing so would surely be "leading by example" by "coordinating the implentation of a real" and lasting progressive system for the taxpayers of Stamford.

Cogs

Edited October 30, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

No no, I've been following. I agree we need to integrate the sectors, we disagree on how it should be done at a staffing level.

And disagreeing is not the end or an insurmountable obstacle, it is in fact the beginning of the process towards resolution. I'm confident that through negotiation a deal could be struck on this or any other issue.

I'm glad we agree that hoping for a volunteer response isn't acceptable.

Well we do agree that hoping for a volunteer response is not ideal, but better perhaps than eliminating volunteers altogether, which is what the SFRD plan in effect does.

Cogs

Edited October 30, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

And since you threw out about the AHJ remember the VFDs currently ARE the AHJs in their specified districts and SFRD should be following what they order...using your logic that is.

The only AHJ that can order SFRD to do anything is the City administration. The volunteer Dept AHJ only have authority over their depts. TOR's administration can not order SFRD or even the other VFD's. When SFRD responds to calls in No. Stamford they are basically providing Mutual Aid (which is pretty much one sided and not exactly mutual) and must follow its own policies.

It is very difficult for the AHJ of a VFD to exert the same controls as the AHJ of a career dept. How do you order volunteers to respond to calls with enough trained personnel in a timely fasion?

[Bnechis 3,961]

And in very short order there will be no volunteers and it will be the taxpayers who suffer that loss acutely.

The taxpayers who's homes burned to the ground 80 pages ago suffered because not enough volunteers showed up? It does not mater how many you have if they do not show up in sufficient numbers every call.

What is the answer is an integrated system whereby each sector is utilized in a fashion which will not increase expenses while still providing enough trained and qualified personnel on duty to respond citywide 24/7. This can be done in a manner which has been explained here throughout this thread.

Cogs, you have explained how you would provide the coverage and how its done in other states, but the volunteers in No. Stamford have not shown any interest in "staffing" the stations so the coverage would actually be 24/7.