One of the most awaited studies to date will be the CityGate report on fire staffing. Back in 2009 the city commissioned CityGate, a well-respected but industry-led consultant company to do a fire staffing study.
Davis has always been a bit of a puzzle, cost-wise. As this graphic of comparable cities shows, Davis compares well with other cities on a critical measure; the budget is relatively low per capita. Davis has fewer firefighters per thousand people. However, Davis also has a lot fewer calls per thousand, and thus the cost per call is exceedingly high.
Davis is also one of the very few departments in the state that has four-person fire engines.
The original CityGate report seemed to believe that the critical number was 15. And they argued at that time for four-firefighter crews, “To provide both the speed and weight of attack and to lessen the need for two units to respond to a modest call, fielding three 4-firefighter crews is a very effective strategy, given the unusual amount of simultaneous incidents and widely spaced stations.”
Moreover, they are insistent that Davis needs more than 12 firefighters on duty. As a result, they need to work with UC Davis fire, “In the combined developed area of Davis and UCD, four fire stations staffed with a total of 15 firefighters on duty are wholly adequate to cover the entire area, if deployed as one system.”
Apparently, that was then and this is now. The fire report from CityGate is now widely expected to recommend moving from 4-person to 3-person fire crews. The interim city manager reportedly believes that such a move overall could save between $1 million and $1.5 million to the city.
Other than finances, we are not certain what has changed.
The Vanguard, in anticipation of this issue coming forward, has spoken with Fire Chief Bill Weisgerber.
The fire chief clearly opposes the move, arguing, “The idea of going from 4-person to 3-person engine companies is seemingly a ‘cost-savings’ strategy.”
He continues, “However, the issue is more accurately one of how many firefighters are needed to respond in time for both the rapid treatment of life-threatening medical emergencies (before permanent or fatal harm occurs) and the control and extinguishment of fires (at the earliest stages, before small fires become large).”
The question that Mr. Weisgerber believes is critical is how many personnel are needed on the scene of a residential structure fire within 11 minutes of a 9-1-1 activation?
He responds, “Firefighting forces of 15, plus a command officer, are necessary to perform all the tasks vital in reducing the effects of fire on the structure and to the occupants. That equates to the first unit arriving at 4 minutes travel time, with multiple units by the 8th minute of travel.”
Our examination, from a few years ago, showed roughly 85% of all stations have gone to three-men crews. Mr. Weisgerber, however, argues that, “Davis’ fire stations are widely spaced apart. Multiple units are needed to deliver enough firefighters to serious emergencies, within a reasonable period of time, in order to effectively perform synchronized tasks for the necessary results.”
He adds, “A compounding issue in Davis is the high occurrence of simultaneous fire-related incidents – averaging an unusually high frequency of approximately 20% of the time.”
Mr. Weisgerber also cites the high occurrence of simultanteous fire-related incidents. This is something that I would like to probe more because CityGate mentioned it two years ago – why would Davis have an “unusual rate” of simultaneous incidents, which Mr. Weisgerber cited at 20% of the time?
He cited a recent incident of three simultaneous alarms: a structure fire on Eighth St., a fire alarm sounding at Gilmore Hall on campus, and a medical aid call on Hanover Dr. All City and UCD resources were engaged at the same time.
He said, “With fewer resources, these incidents would take longer to mitigate, and even preclude the opportunity of releasing one engine (as did happen) for the response to the medical aid. Then, again, this morning all three City engines were on simultaneous medical aid calls. If Engine Company staffing were to be reduced, it would still require more than three engines to achieve essential, system-wide effects of outcomes to inputs.”
“But what’s really important to remember, is the larger picture of a full merger of the two fire departments into a single emergency response delivery system,” he argued. “This objective anticipates netting structural changes to the organization, an assessment of standards of cover (station and personnel deployment), and resultant greater efficiencies.”
In short, Chief Weisgerber believes the city can save money though other ways. “The City and UCD have been engaged in a ground-breaking merger effort for the past few months from which the initial by-products have been: a single fire chief; a single fire dispatch center; and, a combined training program delivered through a single fire training coordinator,” he told the Vanguard.
He argued that staffing cuts at this time would “compromise the fire department management’s ability to flex existing resources in preparation for a more effective deployment model through staff development and reorganization-in order to meet the operational needs of a Davis community fire department now, and into the future.”
“There is an opportunity to work toward a pro rata share of policy reduction goals through a combination of efforts that may include, but are not limited to: shared resources, reorganization and some attrition,” he said. “However, a hasty reduction of existing personnel would have a crippling effect on the flexibility in the fire department system to achieve the larger picture goals.”
One of the critical points that has been made is the low number of structure fires as opposed to medical calls that the fire department receives.
Chief Weisgerber put the number of structure fires at 63, or one every five days. However, he argued this issue was irrelevant to the amount of resources needed.
“As your Fire Chief charged with maintaining first responder readiness, I cannot wait for a disaster to happen before bringing the resources to bear in order to effectively mitigate emergencies,” he said. “Whether it is one fire or 1,001 fires during the year, the resource requirement is the same–as are the basic tactics and strategy.”
But the problem seems to remain that other communities have been able to get away with three-person engine companies.
Mr. Weisgerber explained, “With respect to other agencies that deploy three-person engine companies, they are forced to wait for a second engine to arrive before they can make entry. This delay is the worst case scenario in controlling and extinguishing the fire.”
The original CityGate report appears to have addressed some of this, recommending the city shift from a five-minute response time to a seven-minute response time, 90 percent of the time.
They argue that multiple units are needed to deliver enough firefighters in a “reasonable time to serious emergencies to simultaneously and effectively perform the tasks needed for the outcome.”
Once again, they argue that current staffing and stations are sufficient for this. Almost the entire city is covered by at least three stations within an eight-minute travel time, and the few areas only covered by two stations in that time (if you include UC Davis) are covered by a third within an additional minute.
In other words, if the city’s standard is seven minutes’ response time for one vehicle, the second and even third vehicle can arrive within eight minutes and many times faster than that, that would seem to at least somewhat mitigate that concern.
However, Mr. Weisgerber also suggests that “the delay due to reduced staffing per company can be mitigated through other means to affect the time lapse of the wait. Most agencies of similar size deploy more companies.”
But then again, Davis gets fewer calls than most cities. The one issue that seems odd is why there would be a higher rate of simultaneous calls in Davis. Back in 2009, I wrote, “In 2008, 4,269 total incidents or 11.6/day. The frequency of simultaneous incidents climbed 21% in 2008. The problem is that they do not account for why this should have been. There were no major changes from 2007 to 2008 in terms of buildings, inhabitants, demographics, etc. So to me, this seems more like statistical noise than a true finding. Nevertheless, no one on council questioned this finding.”
The problem is that the trend seems to have continued, why?
One thing people need to understand is why we are where we are. The reason for that has been the rising salaries for firefighters over and above all other departments.
As we can see here, the compensation for firefighters is high, and much higher than comparable level employee salaries for police. And the rate of increase in the middle part of the last decade was extraordinary.
Something has to give. The first domino is clearly the merger. But if CityGate ends up recommending a reduction to three firefighters, it will be an all-out war to see if the council can get it to happen.
The council is cutting $2.5 million in September from personnel costs, and it is conceivable that half could come from moving fire staffing in line with that of other communities.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The council is cutting $2.5 million in September from personnel costs, it is conceivable that half could come from moving fire staffing in line with that of other communities.”
It’s time to go to 3 person crews. If the firemen don’t like it they can go work elsewhere, I’m sure their positions will be easily replaced.
Going to a 3 person crew is a no brainer and I agree with Rusty.
Mayor Krovoza also brought up the idea of a partiallly volunteer fire dept. If there is a shortage for some reason maybe volunteers can be brought in (albeit with some delay).
This whole discussion remind me of former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s strategy that the US military should be able to fight two major wars simultaneously–to expensive.
Medwoman , how long does it take for the human body to die after a heart attack ?
“””””Mayor Krovoza also brought up the idea of a partiallly volunteer fire dept. If there is a shortage for some reason maybe volunteers can be brought in (albeit with some delay). “”””””
Dr. Wu , in your time of need , will your statement above be acceptable ?
I think Avatar has made a good point, but perhaps not the one he intended: Why are we spending $2,598 for a firetruck to respond to a heart attack? Can’t a couple of paramedics in an ambulance take care of the situation faster and cheaper? I mean, I get chest pains, call 911 and the hook-and-ladder shows up with 4 firemen and an ax? Something is really wrong with the way we are doing things.
“…staffing cuts at this time would “compromise the fire department management’s ability to flex existing resources in preparation for a more effective deployment model through staff development and reorganization…'”
I have read this three times and cannot figure out what he is saying. It seems that he means that if you reduce the [i]management[/i] staffing, they won’t be able to implement changes.
Do your pay charts reflect “total pay” (including regular overtime because of firefighters’ unusual schedules)? Are medical aid calls included in “fire related” runs. If so, are you able to separate the runs by types?
In earlier discussions about this, I seem to remember the fire department was unable to provide response time records to compare with the county-contracted ambulance service records. Has the city record-keeping been improved since the last study?
My biggest curiosity is how many of these worst-case calls (house fires requiring entry to fight or save occupants) have we had? If two vehicles take off at the same time for all house fires, it appears there wouldn’t be much time before the fourth firefighter would arrive.
If the smaller team is in our future, we should start planning for the 3-person crews as we consolidate the city and UCD departments. That would help assure that we do everything possible to make the new set-up as safe as possible for our firefighters as well as our residents.
Did the chief [u]really[/u] say that the cutbacks would:[quote][i]”compromise the fire department management’s ability to flex existing resources in preparation for a more effective deployment model through staff development and reorganization–in order to meet the operational needs of a Davis community fire department now, and into the future. There is an opportunity to work toward a pro rata share of policy reduction goals through a combination of efforts that may include, but are not limited to: shared resources, reorganization and some attrition, However, a hasty reduction of existing personnel would have a crippling effect on the flexibility in the fire department system to achieve the larger picture goals.”[/i][/quote]Were you able to determine what he meant?
Three per truck is the only reasonable number.
[b]Observer said ” Why are we spending $2,598 for a firetruck to respond to a heart attack? Can’t a couple of paramedics in an ambulance take care of the situation faster and cheaper?”[/b]
Most medical call do not require Fire to show up, in fact they do not require AMR to show up either. People call for help for things like sprained ankles when a simple trip to the doctor would be the best solution. However, in a real medical emergency they need all of the help they can get – not only at the scene but also in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. You need many hands to stabilize the patient, you need to move the person and equipment to the ambulance (often the patients are over 250 pounds and may have to be carried long distances) and then you need help in the ambulance (remember AMR sends two people and one has to drive). I agree most the the Fire responses for medical situations are a waste of time but not when there is a heart attack situation. I do not know how they could filter out all of the unimportant calls, but more people will die if they do not respond to real emergencies.
[quote]”compromise the fire department management’s ability to flex existing resources in preparation for a more effective deployment model through staff development and reorganization–in order to meet the operational needs of a Davis community fire department now, and into the future. There is an opportunity to work toward a pro rata share of policy reduction goals through a combination of efforts that may include, but are not limited to: shared resources, reorganization and some attrition, However, a hasty reduction of existing personnel would have a crippling effect on the flexibility in the fire department system to achieve the larger picture goals.”[/quote]
I took this to mean that currently the two fire departments (City, UCD) have been working on the assumption of four man teams in making their plans. If suddenly they were told there would only be three man teams, it would throw a monkey wrench into those plans, and force both to go back to square one in their planning strategy. I don’t want to put words in the Fire Chief’s mouth, so he may feel free to correct me if my interpretation of his comments is incorrect.
I am no expert on fire department planning/protocols, or ambulance services. As uninformed spectators/taxpayers, we can sit and debate these issues all day long. I certainly don’t feel qualified to tell them how to do their job. Bottom line (pardon the pun) is the city needs to save $2.5 million. The fire department will need to come up with significant cost cutting measures, so the ball is in their court as to how they choose to do it. It is my understanding that the city has its hands somewhat tied in terms of adjustments to the AMR contract, which is county wide I believe. Again, someone more knowledgeable than I am can respond about this too…
Country, state and city going broke, can’t pay the high salaries of the firemen. But now the State Democrats are now going to give illegal aliens state grant college money. They just don’t get it.
Yeah rusty49, ” They ” just don’t get it . I must question the reading comprehension level in Davis . Oh sorry didn’t mean to interrupt your tea party, but besides being entirely off topic you’re factually in error .
When I was a volunteer in Laguna Beach the rule for structure fires was if two were inside the structure there must two outside for rescue and resuscitation !
First I’d like to say i agree with 3 person minimum staffing. In my opinion 4 should be the goal but if you can’t afford it then you can’t afford it.
Thank you alphoso for a good summary of why fire response is important. Yes most medical calls are either complete BS or could be handled by an ambulance alone. But there’s no guarantee that the dispatch is accurate (it’s only as good as what the caller tells the dispatcher), and if the patient deteriorates or has special problems such as size or location then the extra hands are needed. Unless you have psychic powers you won’t really know what you’re getting into until you get there.
Remember UCD staffs 3 full time firefighters on its engine and 4 (with 3 minimum) on its ladder truck. Student firefighters can increase this to 5 total on the engine or up to 7 total on the ladder truck depending on the students’ availability at the time of call. A practical solution for the City would be either to create a reserve program (minimum wage no benefits) to fill the 4th seat of its fire engines or (when UCD and the City finish the consolidation process) to expand the UCD student firefighter program to City stations. There’s plenty of fresh community college fire academy graduates who would jump at the chance to work part time to start their careers.
As for volunteers… are YOU going to be standing in line to sign up? I
I think your translation is pretty close, Elaine. I’d add that it’s difficult to imagine this language coming out of anyone’s mouth. It looks more like a [u]written[/u] statement from a bureaucrat putting his higher-ups on notice that he’s ready to fight the change all the way.
DFD/UCDFD employees would have to know for some time about the possibility of the smaller crews. Hiring and promotion decisions should have been reflecting the prospect for more than a year. The council isn’t really telling them how to do their job, but they certainly will be telling them what resources they will have to do their job.
Nothing wrong with asking city employees to help develop cost-cutting measures, but the ball still is with the council. Councilors also need to reduce the city workforce significantly to put the our budget back on a sound, longterm basis. Isn’t it obvious that these “hard decisions” better be made soon?
I’d think we’ll be giving pink slips to quite a number of good employees before this is over–just like other government bodies, companies organizations have had to do in recent years.
On July 4, I saw first hand a fire truck and AMR respond to a sprained ankle at the Little League field. A lady slipped and sprained her ankle, and someone called 911 for her. A firetruck with 4 firemen and AMR with 2 paramedics responded to the call. The 4 firemen stood around at the firetruck while the paramedics tended to the injured person. A complete waste for a sprained ankle, which should have been treated with ice at home.
Salaries and benefits for police and firemen should be patterned after the armed services. The Pentagon has to compete for its human resources and has changed its compensation/benefit plans over time to effectively recruit. Those plans are significantly less costly than the Davis fire and police plans. I would argue that the armed forces are in graver danger than either fire or police, and are certainly subjected to much more difficult living and family circumstances than are police and fire. The fact that there is a waiting list for fire jobs provides further evidence that we can cut salary/benefits and still recruit capable work forces.
[b]nvn8v, [/b]thanks for pointing out the the UCD crews already are pretty much there already. I wonder if they are facing a similar management dilemma if they’re forced to go from 3 to 4 as opposed to the city going from 4 to 3. Would the opposite move “compromise the fire department management’s ability to flex existing resources in preparation for a more effective deployment model through staff development and reorganization”?
[quote]The council isn’t really telling them how to do their job, but they certainly will be telling them what resources they will have to do their job. [/quote]
And that is precisely the point. The CC gives the fire department the budget, and then the fire department can decide how best to set things up, how many men on a truck, etc, within that more limited budget. I would rather leave the exact details to the fire departments (UCD, City), than to micromanage here in this blog or up at the dais by CC members…
[b]Elaine[/b], I think you took my management concept a lot farther than I ever meant it to go. I’m not talking about council members debating “the exact details” or “micromanaging from the dias.” Although you say you’d leave to the chief decisions about the minimum number of firefighters per crew, I think the final decision is one for the council.
This is a policy issue, affecting the health and safety of firefighters as well as the citizens they protect. It’s also a big budget item, and the council needs to be able to stand behind the department whatever the decision and whatever the results. Any council that can devote 45 minutes to agonizing over swimming pool hours has time to take responsibility for the city’s life and death decisions.
Where did you over come up with the idea that your fellow Vanguarders should leave the micromanaging to those who have to do the work? What’s this world coming to?!
[quote]Although you say you’d leave to the chief decisions about the minimum number of firefighters per crew, I think the final decision is one for the council. This is a policy issue…[/quote]
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one 🙂 I would prefer to leave it to the fire chief to decide how he is going to work out the merger with UCD, and how many on a fire truck he will need. As someone above suggested, perhaps that fourth team member could be a volunteer student. But I don’t particularly want the City Council to decide how best to configure fire trucks and their crews. They don’t know enough about the issues to be able to give a reasoned decision IMHO, whereas the fire chief is going to be forced to think about configurations within a more limited budget. But my guess is the fire chief will know better how to configure the crew w the limited funding he will have. Why would you want the CC to presume to decide “there shalt only be 3 man fire crews” when the fire chief might very well be able to form 4 man crews by having the 4th be a volunteer student?
[quote]Where did you over come up with the idea that your fellow Vanguarders should leave the micromanaging to those who have to do the work? What’s this world coming to?! [/quote]
LOL
To be clear, UCD student firefighters are not volunteers but rather receive a free room at the campus fire station in exchange for about 90 hours of shift work per month with additional compensation at about $11 per hour for calls or special work performed outside of those times. While not free, it’s a real bargain for the university.
[quote]To be clear, UCD student firefighters are not volunteers but rather receive a free room at the campus fire station in exchange for about 90 hours of shift work per month with additional compensation at about $11 per hour for calls or special work performed outside of those times. While not free, it’s a real bargain for the university.[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification. And yes, it is a real bargain!
I suppose it goes with out saying, but the student firefighters are very qualified at what they do. They are all EMT’s and they go through extensive training.
From website: http://www.ucdavis.edu/spotlight/0605/student_firefighters.html
[quote]When students on the UC Davis campus call for the fire department, they are often greeted with an unexpected sight — their own classmates. Fifteen students live and work alongside 21 career firefighters in a residential firefighting program that is the only one of its kind in California.
Since its inception in 1955, the UC Davis program has gained a reputation as one of the best student jobs on campus. The students live at the fire station while taking three training seminars and working an average of 90 hours per month, all on top of a full-time university course load.
They do not receive regular monetary compensation, but are provided with a free room to live in and an opportunity to earn extra money by responding to calls when they are off-duty.
Though the job is strenuous, it is its own reward. “You get paid for doing what you love to do,” says former student firefighter Graham Northrop.[/quote]
You can read the entire article at the link given above. It states “The Davis student firefighting program is renowned throughout the nation.” Apparently the training they receive is extremely rigorous. Thanks for the tip Alphonso! I always learn new things on this blog…