Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments Fire Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident criticizes DeWitt’s takeover of East Syracuse fire protection and cites a fatality
Summary
Resident Nicholas Gross criticized the Town Board’s transfer of East Syracuse fire protection to the DeWitt Fire Department and alleged operational failures following the change, including that DeWitt crews were unavailable for a May 5 motorcycle crash that resulted in a death.
During the public comment period at the June 9 Town Board meeting, resident Nicholas Gross of Jones Avenue raised a string of complaints about the town’s 2024 decision to transfer East Syracuse Fire Protection District coverage in DeWitt to the DeWitt Fire Department (DFD).
Gross said the board voted in December to award a protection contract to the DeWitt Fire Department and later “voted to dissolve the East Syracuse Fire Protection District.” He told the board he believed the change was undertaken despite resident opposition.
Gross alleged operational problems since DFD assumed the district six months earlier: he said Station 2 crews became lost, “disobeyed orders,” shared keys with the former volunteer department and prioritized structure fires while leaving the northern section “completely unprotected.” He also alleged Station 2 facilities were used “as a showroom for a private business” tied to a DeWitt fire commissioner and said the department purchased three apparatus from that company.
Most seriously, Gross said that on May 5 on Nottingham Road a motorcyclist was struck by a car and later died at the hospital after DeWitt units were unavailable because crews were responding to a fire alarm at New Venture Gear Drive. “DeWitt was not available to respond to their own call,” Gross said, and he said Fayetteville Fire Department had to respond. Gross repeatedly urged the board to resign and said, “You all now have to sleep with that man's blood on your hands.”
The Town Board did not take action in response to the public comment during the meeting. The remarks were made in public comment and did not appear to be accompanied by a request for a formal board agenda item. The clerk and board did not provide an on‑the‑record rebuttal during the meeting.
The board's subsequent agenda advanced to the scheduled public hearings and business items; no vote or formal response regarding the allegations was recorded on the meeting minutes for June 9.
