Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
No decision on fire contract for Kinderhook, Stuyvesant
By Paul Crossman
The Kinderhook Town Board met on Monday to, among other things, consider the best course of action in regards to its contract of protection with the Stuyvesant Falls Fire Company.
The issue at hand — proposed by Kinderhook Town Supervisor Doug McGivney — was whether to discontinue its contract for protection with Stuyvesant Falls and give the same contract to the village of Kinderhook. The supervisor made the proposal after the town of Stuyvesant decided to discontinue its own contract for protection with the village.
At its Monday meeting, the Town Board voted to wait on making a decision about who to give the town’s contract for protection to until a later date, as the town officially has until Jan. 1 to issue the contract.
The board did however, plan the $9,000 expense of the fire contract into the budget, regardless of who it decides to contract with in the future.
According to Councilman Mike Kipp, there were also a number of community members at the meeting who spoke out against the change in fire protection districts, and believed that the town should stick with the contract it already has.
Kipp himself though, believes that the best course of action is to continue to look at the issue, and keep the options for the town open.
“I think what we really need to do is step back a little from it,” he told the Register-Star. “It’s not something we’re going to rush into, we have until January.” He went on to say that there were a number of feasible options that the town can consider, and that one of the reasons for waiting is to give Kinderhook Village Mayor William VanAlstyne more time to try and work the matter out with Stuyvesant.
VanAlstyne, who at a previous meeting voiced his opinion that the town should not be involved in an issue which was essentially between the village and the Stuyvesant Fire commissioners, declined to comment about the town’s decision.
The issue originally started when VanAlstyne received a letter from the Board of Commissioners of the Stuyvesant Fire District stating that the town would not be renewing their $6,000 Contract for Protection with the village of Kinderhook. This means protection for Eichybush, and parts of Hollow, Wilkins and Sunset roads would fall on the Stuyvesant Fire department, which VanAlstyne said results in slower response times.
It then escalated when McGivney, in response to Stuyvesant’s decision, proposed that the town of Kinderhook take the $9,000 contract for protection with Stuyvesant Falls and give it to the village, thus covering the monetary loss of the first contract and protecting the taxpayers.
Residents who are against the switch and live in the area of Kinderhook covered by the Stuyvesant Falls Fire Department are worried that the town may not be able to cover its district as effectively as the closer Stuyvesant department. McGivney though, says that he conferred with the Kinderhook Fire Department, and they feel they can adequately do the job.
Though no meetings between the Stuyvesant Fire commissioners and the village of Kinderhook board have yet occurred, VanAlstyne says that he definitely plans on initiating them in the near future.
To reach reporter Paul Crossman call 518-828-1616, ext. 2266, or e- mail pcrossman@registerstar.com.
The issue at hand — proposed by Kinderhook Town Supervisor Doug McGivney — was whether to discontinue its contract for protection with Stuyvesant Falls and give the same contract to the village of Kinderhook. The supervisor made the proposal after the town of Stuyvesant decided to discontinue its own contract for protection with the village.
At its Monday meeting, the Town Board voted to wait on making a decision about who to give the town’s contract for protection to until a later date, as the town officially has until Jan. 1 to issue the contract.
The board did however, plan the $9,000 expense of the fire contract into the budget, regardless of who it decides to contract with in the future.
According to Councilman Mike Kipp, there were also a number of community members at the meeting who spoke out against the change in fire protection districts, and believed that the town should stick with the contract it already has.
Kipp himself though, believes that the best course of action is to continue to look at the issue, and keep the options for the town open.
“I think what we really need to do is step back a little from it,” he told the Register-Star. “It’s not something we’re going to rush into, we have until January.” He went on to say that there were a number of feasible options that the town can consider, and that one of the reasons for waiting is to give Kinderhook Village Mayor William VanAlstyne more time to try and work the matter out with Stuyvesant.
VanAlstyne, who at a previous meeting voiced his opinion that the town should not be involved in an issue which was essentially between the village and the Stuyvesant Fire commissioners, declined to comment about the town’s decision.
The issue originally started when VanAlstyne received a letter from the Board of Commissioners of the Stuyvesant Fire District stating that the town would not be renewing their $6,000 Contract for Protection with the village of Kinderhook. This means protection for Eichybush, and parts of Hollow, Wilkins and Sunset roads would fall on the Stuyvesant Fire department, which VanAlstyne said results in slower response times.
It then escalated when McGivney, in response to Stuyvesant’s decision, proposed that the town of Kinderhook take the $9,000 contract for protection with Stuyvesant Falls and give it to the village, thus covering the monetary loss of the first contract and protecting the taxpayers.
Residents who are against the switch and live in the area of Kinderhook covered by the Stuyvesant Falls Fire Department are worried that the town may not be able to cover its district as effectively as the closer Stuyvesant department. McGivney though, says that he conferred with the Kinderhook Fire Department, and they feel they can adequately do the job.
Though no meetings between the Stuyvesant Fire commissioners and the village of Kinderhook board have yet occurred, VanAlstyne says that he definitely plans on initiating them in the near future.
To reach reporter Paul Crossman call 518-828-1616, ext. 2266, or e- mail pcrossman@registerstar.com.
Share this Article
 |
||
| Claverack Party endorses Bowe, Andrews, Bowers, Nitschke |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of registerstar.com.
ripple wrote on Oct 29, 2009 8:00 PM:
" Lets not forget the fire company itself in all this. The purchase of land next to there firehouse, the purchase of a new fire truck before they finished paying for the last one they bought, the new Jaws, oh Yea lets not forget the new boat. Now they have plans on there wall for there next truck they want to buy, and Im sure at some point they will need to expand the firehouse to fit all there new toys. OH and lets not forget they pay there chiefs to respond to these calls. It is all about the money.Tthey need to pay for these things somehow. What happens next???? Hey you know the Stuyvesant Falls district is only a short distance from the Stuyvesant firehouse .. "
S Montie 44 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:53 AM:
" Lets forget ,,, we swapped land ,didn't buy it .. Next the boat was purchased by donations not taxpayers .. The jaws and rescue truck where purchaced with the help of some very large donations. I know you know that ..... You also know that we have talked about expanding the station , jealous ? At least when we purchase trucks we think of the tax payers. When 35-1 was replaced you could have bought a brand new truck for a $ 100,000.00 less then the one you bought that would have done the same thing. But I forgot it didn't match the other one. You forgot to mention the pickup that was donated to use . The bottom line is all the stuff you mentioned ripple is all district NOT COMPANY so let's get off you high horse and get back to reality , our job is life saftey not about whos got what . "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
stonepound wrote on Oct 28, 2009 6:59 AM: