Move will Actually Cost the City Nearly 200,000 Additional Dollars Annually –
In June, the city received a report from the consulting firm Citygate on that looked into ways the city could restructure the fire department’s staffing. In most ways, the report was a disappointment in that it failed to recommend any major reform that would result in real cost savings.
However, even within that report, there were still a few items of interest including the fact that an increased relationship with UC Davis, along with a more realistic response time requirement of 7 minutes rather than the current 5 minute standard, would result in no need for a fourth fire station for the foreseeable future short of a large amount of growth in the north of Davis–the result probably of fully developing both Covell Village and Cannery Park.
The city’s staff report unfortunately does not address the issue of response time at all. However, it does deal with the issues of the relationship with UC Davis, headquarters staffing, and relief staffing.
The fire department has long wanted to move to the battalion chief model which would add three command positions while deleting two.
The city’s staff report argues:
“Currently, the Fire Department utilizes Division Chiefs and has a formal arrangement for sharing with UC Davis Duty Chiefs. This is a less-than-ideal situation, as it requires a Division Chief to be on-call 24-7 for one week per month. This means there is no Incident Commander on-site outside of regular business hours and is not a preferred model by Citygate or by the Department. Citygate concurs that a Battalion Chief command structure would be preferable and recommends phasing out the Division Chief model if feasible economically. With the announced retirements, we believe we have a window of opportunity to accomplish this transition.”
The staff report continues:
“At this stage, staff believes a Battalion Chief model would better serve the department and the long-term needs of the community. It provides for a constant on-site presence, a clear chain of command for each shift, and individuals trained for and focused specifically on the role they are providing. The current structure, where Division Chiefs and the Fire Chief rotate as Duty Chiefs, raises concerns. The current Duty Chiefs are oncall for a week’s time, but they are only on-site during regular business hours. If there is an emergency after-hours, they often have to respond to incidents from wherever they are to ensure proper management of the incident. The Battalion Chief model is not an unusual model; it is a standard in the fire industry, with many fire departments in the region utilizing it (Folsom, Roseville, Vacaville, Woodland, Fairfield, Sac Metro, etc.).”
But is it feasible economically?
The Citygate report in fact finds that the shift would cost the city around $181,448. That would certainly not be an economically feasible change unless the city can find a way to offset those costs with other savings. They do this through the reduction of the number of relief staff.
“Citygate suggested a reduction of the relief firefighter staffing from three per shift to two per shift was tangible and would result in savings even with a increment in increased overtime. This was based on using a relief factor of 0.16 to 0.18 per firefighter. The primary caveats are situations where a firefighter or sworn staff member is off the lines for an extended period of time (e.g. parental leave, light duty, military leave). In these situations, more aggressive management of leave times may be necessary. Regardless, under most circumstances, Citygate believes the City can reduce the number of relief staff, provide the same level of service and save money.”
That is provided the amount of overtime does not exceed the cost of an additional relief firefighter.
This is a rather clever shift by doing it all at the same time. In essence, the savings will derived completely by eliminating the positions of rank and file firefighters who form the relief staff in order to be able to afford the more expensive Battalion Chief model.
In fact, according to the Citygate report the savings from the relief staff change would be substantial around $360,000.
By making these moves together, the city masks the fact that it has an easy way to save $360,000 without harming quality of service to the city that could be used to restore city services that have been cut in the current budget scenario.
The justification for this move is that the “Battalion Chief model would better serve the department and the long-term needs of the community.” But it seems that we already provide good service to the community with the existing model. In fact, at numerous times during the past year we have been told how high our customer satisfaction ratings that the fire department has received. In fact, those high ratings were used as justification to do very little in the face of rather serious recriminations stemming from the Grand Jury’s report that highlighted numerous areas of concern.
The bottom line it would seem is that the current command structure may be “less-than-ideal” but it is working. During a time of budget crisis, we need to learn to make do with things that are working fairly well and are more cost effective. If it is not broken, do not attempt to repair it. We could easily pocket the $360,000 in cost savings from the relief staffing shift and pick a better economic time to add the Battalion Chief model. That is of course if the firefighters union had not spent considerable time and energy to influence past and likely future elections.
But there is an additional sleight of hand going on here that the public is never going to be aware of. Privately, Citygate apparently recommended that the city hire from outside of the department to fill the Battalion Chief positions. The city staff is recommending an open recruitment, however they are also holding out the possibility of hiring internally. The sleight of hand is this: it is more cost effective from the city’s standpoint to hire internally.
“The City would hold an open recruitment for the Battalion Chief position. If existing employees were hired, then layoffs could be avoided through internal promotions. If someone not currently employed by the City were hired, in order to maintain the proposed cost savings (or at least make the move to Battalion Chiefs cost neutral), there would have to be a reduction in one or two firefighter positions.”
Thus the city now has the incentive and excuse to hire internally rather than lay off additional employees when both the Grand Jury and Citygate strongly recommended the need for outside hires to infuse a different culture and climate in the department.
The bottom line is this: the firefighters have wanted the shift for a long time and have lobbied the city for it. The Citygate report gives the city partial cover by recommending the move and finding a way to cover the cost. The city has covered up for the added expense of this move by making it in conjunction with the cost savings for the relief staffing shift. However, the city could save far more money by simply employing the relief staff changes. Moreover, the city has found a way to incentivize an internal promotion when all sides agreed it would be better to hire from outside the department. As a result, there is likely to not be real cost savings realized and the city will have to wait additional time for real reform in the fire department.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What is your read on how the CC will act on this?
Has the combining of UCD and city fire depts been addressed at all seriously since the report?
To me that efficiency makes sense.
The difference between 5 minutes and 7 minutes for someone not breathing is that the person is dead after 6 minutes. Of course this change would save not only on city budgets but also on health care costs as well.
SODA: Combining the operations of the two departments is something that will be pursued.
Mr. Toad: You obviously didn’t read the initial citygate report. Basically 5 minutes is not the standard anywhere, and it is not what is happening now in Davis anyway. I invite you to read the initial report on response times before you jump to conclusions.
David
my point about UCD is that THAT issue should be discussed and finally decided BEFORE chNging models, adding high cost battalian chiefs, etc.
Don’t you agree? If we get cart before horse, we are stuck with cart and may never get horse!
I definitely agree. The Battalion Chief model does not appear necessary now given the fiscal situation of the city. UC Davis cooperation makes all the sense in the world. I have heard in the past there is a reluctance to combine operations by the DFD, I don’t know if that’s changed.
I believe that discussing/deciding issue of UCD/Davis combining should be a requirement before vote on new model. If any CC members are reading, please consider this approach.
I didn’t see an addional huge cost associated with Citygate’s recommendation to exchange the operations chief, training chief and prevention captain to three battalion chiefs. The three currently staffed positions work Monday through Friday and when they are off on sick, training and vacation no one is paid overtime to staff them. But the battalion chiefs would work the 24 hour shift system and would be subject to staffing with overtime when they are off. As such, each of the B/C’s benefits entitle them to compensated days off 18% of their work schedule. Those vacant positions would have to be filled by paying out overtime to other off-duty battalion chiefs. This amounts to having to staff each of those positions with overtime every 5.5 working days. Run the numbers and you have to add another six digit figure to the annual fire budget.
You also don’t have to hire new people. The Operations and Training chiefs and the prevention captain can be converted into the three battalion chiefs. The only thing that has to happen is the continue to pay the chiefs their $6000 more each year until the battalion chiefs COLA catches up — in about two to three years in this economy.
I did not read the Citygate report, but I assume they did not factor in the overtime needed to cover the vacancies created by the 18% paid time off. At the overtime rate of 150%, the 18% equates to $158,000. I didn’t see that figure presented anywhere.