Utica council refers ordinance on fire-department composition after debate over assistant chief post
Loading...
Summary
A proposed ordinance to amend the composition of the Utica Fire Department was sent to committee after a lengthy council discussion that included the fire chief and a mayoral communication highlighting collective-bargaining constraints on abolishing the assistant fire chief position.
The Utica Common Council voted to refer proposed ordinances that would change the composition of the Utica Fire Department to committee after extended debate and a letter from the mayor’s office outlining legal limits.
Council members opened discussion on an ordinance described on the agenda as “amending the composition of the Bureau of Fire.” The item was placed in committee for further review and public comment; a formal ordinance text will be reviewed at the committee stage before the council considers final action.
The city’s fire chief urged the council to retain the assistant fire chief role. Reading from a prepared letter, the chief asked council members to “support the retention of the assistant fire chief position,” noting the position’s role in overseeing day-to-day operations, training, interagency coordination and major-incident command. The chief said Utica’s fire department responded to “over 16,800 calls for service within the city” last year and described the department’s operational staffing as “lean,” with most personnel assigned to operations.
A communication from the mayor’s office shared with the council next argued the assistant fire chief position could not be abolished under the city’s existing collective-bargaining agreements unless three specific conditions were all met: the position must be vacant, the city must abolish its ambulance service, and the department complement must be reduced to 75 members. The administration’s memo said the department currently has a complement of 132 members and operates an ambulance service; therefore the office concluded the council cannot lawfully eliminate the assistant fire chief under the current contract without reducing staffing by 57 positions and ending medical transport services.
Council members discussed alternatives the administration suggested in its memo, including eliminating a vacant chief fire marshal position and adding a second fire marshal to shift administrative workload while maintaining operational staffing. Several council members said they wanted the issue vetted in committee so the council could review the contract language, the administration’s recommendation, and impacts on public-safety operations.
No ordinance amendment or abolition was adopted on the floor. Instead the matter will be considered in committee, where council members expect to review the mayor’s memo, the collective-bargaining agreement language, the civil-service job descriptions cited by the administration, and testimony from the fire department.
The council also recorded public comments and questions from members about chain-of-command authority and the role of unions and contracts in determining department staffing. Several members said they sought clarity from the city attorney and the Board of Estimate before supporting any change. The mayor’s office invited council members to contact the mayor with questions about the recommended alternative of reallocating the vacant chief fire marshal slot.
The council’s decision to send the item to committee means no immediate change will be made to the fire-department complement; further action requires committee review and, if the committee endorses an ordinance, a future council vote.
