Major concerns about Stamford fire protection

Staff Reports
Posted: 11/20/2008 02:46:02 AM EST

Major concerns about Stamford fire protection - Topix

To the editor:

On Nov. 13, I attended the North Stamford Association forum on the topic: "Who Will Answer The Call," regarding fire protection service for the Belltown, Long Ridge and Turn of River fire districts. The presenters were the chiefs and immediate past chiefs of the Turn of River and Belltown fire departments, and the chief of Long Ridge department.

I am greatly concerned about the infighting between the city of Stamford and the volunteer fire departments, as it may affect the capability of anyone to provide adequate fire service to the northern fire districts.

It was evident that representatives of the city of Stamford were absent. The reason given was that there is an ongoing lawsuit by the Turn of River Fire Department against the city, and that they felt that it was not appropriate for them to be present. I call that irresponsible; they should have been available to discuss this issue.

I listened intently to the presentations. I was informed of a few new, interesting facts (that were not printed in The Advocate in its Nov. 14 front page story "Volunteer chiefs say they need city firefighters"):

1) Of the taxes for fire protection collected by the city of Stamford from the northern areas, less than 50 percent is returned for fire protection of those areas. I'd like to know where the balance of that money goes.

It does not appear to be included in the Stamford Fire & Rescue Department budget. Are we not getting the services that we are paying for? Is this hidden revenue for the city of Stamford?

2) The city does not have a publicly announced plan of fire protection service for the area in which I live. When the city removed the paid firefighters from Turn of River and Belltown - the volunteers (i.e. unpaid firefighters) took over. Currently, all I can see is city-manned fire engines stationed on both Vine and Long Ridge roads, and a group of dedicated volunteers who state that they are not always available. Of course volunteers can't always be available - they too have to earn a living.

An effective and cost-efficient firefighting system, which was in place prior to July 1, operated when the city provided a small group of paid firefighters to the volunteer firehouses.

3) Our country (which includes Stamford) is in a huge economic downturn. All municipalities are in a struggle to provide services.

We have an opportunity to reap a benefit by encouraging community volunteerism; to continue a valued tradition of people who will provide fire service for nothing! All they ask is that the city to continue the tradition of providing a small group of paid firefighters to get the engines to the scene, and the volunteers would be there to work side by side.

4) A recent complaint by the city is that the Turn of River department was costing the city an excess of overtime. Perhaps if the city provided sufficient manpower to cover the paid firefighters that were previously assigned to the volunteer houses, then when they took their duly earned vacation, then there would not be any overtime needed.

5) The volunteer fire departments own their buildings and apparatus. If the city puts the volunteers "out of business," which it seems intent on doing, what will fire protection services cost us, the taxpayers? Is the city really so smug that it would turn aside people who are willing to work for nothing?

The city owes its citizens an explanation of where the tax money collected for fire protection is going, and should restore a consultant-proven economically efficient system for fire protection: the volunteer firefighter working with paid firefighters.

I thank the North Stamford Association for hosting this informative discussion.

Michael Kellick

Stamford

The writer is a Turn of River Fire District resident.