Interim Chief Finds City Spends Nearly 1.5 Million Dollars Annually To Prepare For Five Incidents –
Last week the Vanguard reported on how the city came to make the decision back in 1999 to go to a four-person fire engine as a way to meet the new OSHA regulations requiring two men in and two men out in order to fight a fire.
Back in 1999, the council unanimously approved the hiring of six firefighters at the cost of 368,676 dollars. Which means at that time, total compensation for a firefighter was about 60,000 dollars a year and that figure “included the costs for turnouts, beds and lockers for the new firefighters.”
As Rich Rifkin reported last week, currently the cost of additional firefighters on the engines have risen to $1.48 million in 2011-12. He added, “For the 2012-13 fiscal year the cost will be another $1.57 million. In five years it will be $1.94 million.”
One clear way the city could save money would be to reduce fire staffing either to three people on an engine, or revert to 1998 staffing levels that had three persons on an engine in the outlying stations and four at the central fire station.
The city’s interim fire chief, Scott Kenley, told the Vanguard on Monday that the he in the process of a full analysis of fire staffing with a report going directly to city council, due in late September.
He said it was a matter of either increasing or reducing the risk to the community.
Back in 1999, he said, the Davis City Council made the decision to set the current level of service.
The staff report, written by then-Fire Chief Rose Conroy, shows at that time the city responded to about 2538 call for service with four firefighters at the main downtown station and three at the other two stations.
Wrote the chief at that time, “Beginning May 22, 1999 we will no longer be able to allow the first in engine company to enter the structure to begin search & rescue or to attack the fire.”
She noted, “We will have to wait for the arrival of the second due engine company before entering the structure.”
Their analysis showed that the delay between the first and second engines ranged from 20 seconds to 5:45 minutes. The analysis provided by CityGate shows that Davis has two fire engine coverage within 7 minutes for most stations. There are alternative staffing arrangements that could be made in case the situation requires an entry prior to the second unit arriving.
There are exceptions to the regulation: “If, upon arrival at the scene, members find an imminent life-threatening situation where immediate action may prevent the loss of life or serious injury, such action shall be permitted with less than four persons on the scene.”
Interim Chief Kenley told the Vanguard that under current polices, they utilize a RIC team, or Rapid Intervention Crew/Team. The RIC team has two firefighters, who are dedicated to specific duties, remain outside.
The captain and the firefighter make the immediate entry and the captain from inside the building coordinates the interior attack.
When the second team arrives, the captain assumes command of the scene. However, that has now changed slightly as beginning in May, the city has a 24-hour shift division chief, who becomes the fifth person on the scene and assume command of the scene.
One of the critical questions is the risk assessment to dropping the number of firefighters on duty. Back in 2009, Chief Rose Conroy analyzed the data and found that there were ten instances where the city would have been out of compliance with the new OSHA standard.
However, Scott Kenley said he has gone back through three years of service calls, looking at all calls where equipment was tied up for more than an hour – those calls that are most likely to include fires significant enough to require an entry.
According to his analysis, Davis has only had five fires a year requiring an interior entry, which would require the two in/ two out standard.
In short, the city is spending $1.5 million per year to prepare for five incidents.
One of the questions is whether there could be an alternative staffing arrangement to handle these five incidents – and really to handle two minutes of those five incidents.
One idea is to train police officers to act as the fourth person until the second unit arrives.
Chief Kenley seems skeptical. He cited four communities, Brisbane, Sunnyvale, Scottsdale and one other community, that have attempted to have alternative staffing arrangements, whether it was to have a public safety department, or to train officers to act as firefighters – none of them have lasted more than a limited period of time.
He also questioned whether volunteers could act as supplements, citing stringent state certification requirements that would seem to preclude most people holding a normal 9-5 job from being certified.
He believes that a volunteer program can help in a number of areas, but not likely here.
In our previous analysis, we noted that Davis is in a small minority of 25%, and shrinking, of communities with exclusively four-firefighter engines.
The data is now relatively old, but when we ran an analysis of 12 comparable cities, Davis had the fourth highest cost per call, and the lowest number of service calls and calls per 1000 people. As well as one of the lower number of calls per firefighter.
That data was for a period of 2005-2008 – before the economic crisis hit and yet Davis has done virtually nothing since them to change those numbers.
Even in 1999, it was not clear that cities had to go to four-firefighter engines. Chief Conroy found, “There is no single solution that fits the many jurisdictions in the state.”
She concluded, “I believe six additional firefighters would enable us to comply with OSHA 2 In 2 Out safety regulation and maintain the ability to enter with first arriving engine company (the same level of service we do today). Additionally, it would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the engine company significantly.”
But she added, “I recommend we hire six firefighters and monitor the performance and costs associated with this recommendation.”
But Chief Conroy likely never anticipated how much costs would explode during the next 13 years. By the time that became clear, she and the department were already seemingly wedded to the staffing arrangement.
Will things change now? The city has seemingly attempted multiple studies, including two by CityGate that suggest the city needs to maintain, if not increase, staffing levels.
However, Scott Kenley is not the typical chief. He was clearly brought in to provide the council with a voice independent of union influence. And while CityGate is a reputable organization, it is run by former firefighters who have their own mindset.
Mr. Kenley’s study will seemingly be the last opportunity for the city to reduce its firefighting force.
His report to council will be done in late September and at that point he hopes to provide the council with clear information that they need in order to make an informed choice.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Mr. Kensey’s study will seemingly be the last opportunity for the city reduce its firefighting force.
[/quote]
Why would this be the case ?
Just my opinion but if Kensey cannot justify going to three person crews, I don’t see who can.
Only 5 incidents in a year? It’s so obvious what needs to be done.
It’s time to cut to 3 person crews, let’s get to it!
I will really, really be interested to see what this report says…
Finally, 12 years after I first questioned from the City Council daid why the City was spending so much money on what was then clearly over-staffing.
Without the Davis Vanguard and Rich Rifkin, and the Great Recession, we would never be having this discussion.
Without the “Great Recession” we wouldn’t need to discuss it.
“Without the “Great Recession” we wouldn’t need to discuss it. “
I disagree. We were talking about it during the 2008 campaign. It was sustainable. Many communities had already gone back to 3 even before September 2008. The Recession simply hastened the call for change.
[quote]”Without the “Great Recession” we wouldn’t need to discuss it.” [b]- Ryan[/b][/quote]Analyzing ways to increase the cost-effectiveness of city services is prudent and appropriate under [i]all[/i] economic circumstances.
Had we not waited for the bad times to start discussing these issues, things would not be as bad as they are.
Well said David.
Both Davids
I sat down for more than an hour last week with Chief Kenley and we talked about these issues and more extensively. One question I asked Scott regarded any scenarios he knew of (since coming to Davis) where our not having a 4th person on a fire truck would have caused a significant delay in response time or how the fire was fought. He said (in his time here) one stood out.
It was a structure fire ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/crime-fire-courts/blaze-displaces-residents-of-west-davis-home/[/url]) on July 9, 2012 at 2760 Eel Place, the home of Glen and Lesley Byrns ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/letters/fire-victims-are-resilient/[/url]). Eel Place, in the West Manor neighborhood, is about a 20 second drive from the fire station on Arlington Boulevard in far W. Davis.
Fire crews from Central Davis also raced to the garage fire. But obviously 5th & E, where the central station is located, are a lot further from Eel Place than the crew situated on Arlington is. I think Chief Kenley told me the Central Davis trucks arrived 5 minutes after the West Davis truck was on scene. (The first crew, of course, needs to take 1-2 minutes upon arriving to set up and to analyze the safest approach and to walk the perimeter, etc.)
In this case, the W. Davis firefighters could have stayed on the street side of the fire and blown water into the garage to douse the fire. But if they had done that, Scott told me that the flames from the garage likely would have blown into the house and chances are the whole house would have been engulfed.
Instead, with the exterior garage door open, they crew set up a 2-in, 2-out attack (as required by OSHA), where 2 men with a hose entered the house through the front door and walked to where the interior garage door in the house is located. They opened that door and turned their hose on the burning garage. That doused the fire and blew the heat away from the main part of the house. As a result, they put out the fire and the rest of the house was largely saved.
The reason I am relaying this story is because it is important to understand that there are some trade-offs by going back to 3-person crews, beyond just the loss of income to the fire union. Cheif Kenley implied that, while no lives were in jeopardy on Eel Place, the property damage would have been more extensive if the firefighters from W. Davis had to wait until the Central Davis trucks arrived before making entry.
Keep in mind that unless you live in far West Davis or far South Davis (near the fire station on Mace Blvd.) the chances are strong that two fire trucks will arrive within 1-2 minutes of each other in the rest of Davis. We only face this disparity in arrival times if the property in question is very close to one of the perimeter stations. If you live in C. Davis, it will be no issue at all, because the station staff there is larger at all times.
One very serious question, which would end all doubts about whether we should have a 4th firefighter on a crew, is whether the 2-in, 2-out guidelines set by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), which every department in California adheres to, can even be met with just four people on a truck. Bruce Philpott, the former Police Chief of Pasadena and a critic of excessive fire spending, says that the NPFA guidelines require a 5th person to be on scene in order to comply. (Chief Kenley told me that he does not agree with Philpott’s contention.) Here is an excert from what Chief Philpott wrote about the NPFA guidelines:
[i]”Per NFPA, one firefighter must be assigned to the hydrant to attach the hose and wait for the engineer’s instruction to activate the water flow. NFPA also requires the engineer to remain at the pump controls on the engine at all times to assure the firefighters making entry have constant water pressure and flow. This is for firefighter safety because any sudden change in water pressure due to a faulty hose or the motor stops running, he must be ready to act and resolve the problem immediately. He also cannot be part of the entry team as he is too far from the entry point to provide a rescue if required.
“NFPA and OSHA rules do say that one of the two entry team members on the outside can have one additional function, but he still must be available to mount a rescue by stationing himself near the point of entry. One could argue that the firefighter assigned to the hydrant can rapidly get back to the point of the intended entry to make up one of the four needed positions, but that still leaves two entry positions not filled with the first engine. Even if you can make an argument that the engineer can participate in the 2 out part of the entry team, you still need a fourth person who is not the captain as explained in the next paragraph.
“The captain on the first arriving engine is the incident commander until relieved by the battalion chief. The NFPA says that he cannot be involved in operations on the fire ground, including the entry team. As incident commander at the scene of a working structure fire, NFPA says he must be in a position to focus on the ever changing conditions and direct in-coming resources to maximize their role in suppressing the fire.
“Even though the NFPA recommends that each engine company be staffed with four – the average staffing today is still three – it also recognizes that the first engine company, even if it is staffed with four, cannot assemble the required entry team until a second engine company has arrived.
“I have quotes form a high ranking member of the NFPA confirming this position. Even the IAFF acknowledges that it cannot be done. If each engine company is staffed with three, the first in engine can assign one firefighter to the hydrant function and the engineer to the pump controls and the captain can fully function as the incident commander.
“Prior to the need to activate the hydrant flow, the engineer can make a lap of the structure to cut gas and electrical power, further safe guarding the entry team. He can also check on the possibility that a civilian may be trapped inside. In that case, both NFPA and OSHA allow a rescue team comprised of less than four.
“In Glendale, as in many departments throughout California, the second engine and first truck company arrive about one minute after the first engine. It also takes that same minute for several pre-entry functions to be performed, such as a search for victims and the lap around the house as mentioned above.
“In most structure fires, the accumulated gases, heat and smoke must be ventilated before a safe entry can be made. This requires the performance by the truck company. Typically these firefighters cut holes in the roof to permit the heat and smoke to escape. NFPA also requires the structure to be ventilated before the four-person attack team can enter. This is obviously for firefighter safety.
“While the truck company is performing these functions, the personnel on the second engine can assemble the required four person entry team, even if both engines are staffed with three firefighters because the firefighter assigned to the hydrant is now available.”[/i]
Bottom line if Philpott is correct: There is no reason to have a 4th firefighter, because per NPFA [b]they have to wait for a second truck to arrive, whether each truck has 3 or 4[/b].
David G.: [i]”We were talking about (going back to 3-man crews) during the 2008 campaign. It wasn’t sustainable. Many communities had already gone back to 3 even before September 2008. The Recession simply hastened the call for change.”[/i]
I agree with David.
Even when the bubble was still pouring excess cash into the coffers of the City of Davis in 2007, the Council could not come up with enough money for street and sidewalk maintenance. They instead, at that time, started accumulating a liability called “unmet needs.” David probably knows the precise annual numbers, but my recollection is that we have added $1 million or more to that debt account every year since 2007.
And since we are spending roughly $1.5 million per year to have a 4th firefighter on each crew*, going back to 3-man crews would give us a sustainable long-term flow of funds to pay for needed street and sidewalk repairs which are still not getting done.
*Chief Kenley mentioned to me that, while it may be a good idea to go back to 3-man crews at the West and South Davis stations, he said there are other considerations for the Central Davis station which makes a 3-man crew an unwise option. I was not aware of that when I wrote my column–it was published a few hours before I met with Scott. And so if the Council makes the decision that I believe is correct–to have 3-man crews–but they agree with Chief Kenley that should only be done at the perimter fire stations, then the annual savings would be closer to $1 million (in 2011-12) than the $1.5 million that I found (based on cutbacks at all three stations).
I agree with Rusty. Both Davids covered the primary arguments debunking this myth that the Great Recession is to blame for our city (and State, and Federal) budget deficits. The Great Recession only contributed to an accelerated day of reckoning.
A couple of related thoughts and observations:
One – Democrats swept into office at the Federal level, and Brown won the state gubernatorial election based on voter displeasure about the state of the economy. If the Great Recession was so responsible for our city’s budget woes, then there should be extra animus directed at this Democrat politicians for failing to bring the state and national economy back. I don’t see much of that animus. So, it puts a lot of doubt in my mind that those using this excuse actually believe it. It is more likely a proxy culprit for masking their desire to protect spending levels… which have been at an unsustainable trajectory for over two decades.
Two – I agree with Rifkin on the supply of housing (and CRE) properties being the big sack of rocks over the shoulder of Uncle Sam preventing him from standing up straight again. However, even deeper than that point is a realization that we were living on much fake growth of over exuberance for the last two decades. Much of the tech industry is real and it did drive much growth; but looking at the consumerism that caused a run on consumer tech products, and the corresponding drive for business to invest in tech for expansion and automation… if that consumerism was driven by fake wealth – which it was – the rest of it was fake too. The wealth has been primarily from returns on overheated real estate that drove the stock market to also be overheated. Take that away and even the real wage growth that we experienced during this time is suspect as being fake.
Although the stock market has been sputtering along trying to fake us out again; the reality is that the US is out of tricks. The Dems had a dream that the government could jump-start a green technology revolution that matched the 1990s tech explosion. Two problems with that… one – traditional energy is still the more affordable alternative (unlike tech which had no alternative until actual products were invented)… two – we trained China and the rest of the world to better compete with us and quickly copy our inventions and do them more cheaply.
What we need to do now is focus on growing back our industrial base. We need to invest in a broad program to re-light our industrial base and start competing head to head with the rest of the globe on EVERYTHING. To do that, we need labor costs to contract. To help with that, we need to combat fake inflation so people can afford to live on less. Examples include the cost of education, the cost of government, the cost of entitlement, the cost of energy, the cost of healthcare. Housing costs should also be deflating. The reason they remain high is that banks stopped making real estate loans and there is a glut of people needing to rent. Landlords are getting high rents because of demand.
We need leadership in Washington and at the state level to stop focusing providing direct services and payments to individuals that are “hurting”, and start focusing on the long-term REAL needs to bring the country back to fiscal stability and greatness. Labor costs need to deflate so we can be more competitive globally and win back industrial market share. Banks need to be encouraged to lend. Businesses need to be encouraged to start and expand. Inflation of necessary products and services needs to be beat back. For example, higher education needs to be taken to task for hyper tuition costs. Only the most efficient service providers should get any government money. We should aggressively expand oil and gas production. We should be building nuclear power plants. Both of these will help to drive down the cost of energy. We should be working to address the glut of housing. Allow investors to purchase HUD-owned properties. Allow mortgage write downs. We should be reducing the credit stifling regulations on community and regional banks so that they start lending again.
We are not doing any of these things… and we are not solving any long-term problems.
Meanwhile, there is no good reasons we cannot got to 3-person fire crews.
JEFF: [i]”We need to invest in a broad program to re-light our industrial base and start competing head to head with the rest of the globe on EVERYTHING.”[/i]
Perhaps a good model for the U.S. to emulate is Germany.
JEFF: [i]”To do that, we need labor costs to contract.”[/i]
Other than with healthcare, which costs German companies a small amount, but costs American companies far more, the price of labor in German industry is twice as much as it is in the U.S. From Forbes ([url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/[/url]): [quote]”… the average auto worker in Germany (in 2010) made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour.”[/quote] (See this for a comparison on healthcare costs for employers ([url]http://www.health-insurance-carriers.com/blog/health-care-germany-vs-america/[/url]).)
The great difference between the German model and ours starts with the education system. In the U.S., we have completely abandoned trade school industrial education. Even crappy inner-city high schools where the typical graduate cannot read at a 5th grade level, the focus is all about getting students ready to go on to a four-year university degree. (The great joke is that some of these failed ghetto schools still have their old names, like Manual Arts in Los Angeles, where there is no trade school program.)
It’s the polar opposite in Germany at most high schools. Their students are very well prepared for work. They are taught the mechanical and industrial skills which they need to be productive workers in industry. The math and language instruction and the computer tasks they learn are in sync with what BMW and Audi and Mercedes and all sorts of precision manufacturers need, not what any teachers’ union or civil rights group thinks is important.
Germany also has outstanding post-high school technical and trade schools, and they have mentoring programs which match journeymen with apprentices, so that refined skills and methods are passed down to each new generation. (I once visited a small, high-end furniture factory in Hamburg and was impressed to see the journeymen carpenters teaching 16-year-old boys how to carve fancy table legs with power tools.)
The only students in Germany who go on to academic universities are those with high IQs. And so the caliber of their college grads tends to be extremely high compared with most other modern countries.
For cultural and political reasons we can’t fully copy what the Germans do. If we did, all of our college students would be brilliant, hardworking Asians. (Oh wait, that’s already just about true.) But at the very least we should try to learn from the fact that not everyone is well served by a “general” or “college prep” high school program. We need to stop ignoring the best interests of the 70-80% of our population which would be better off getting a focused high school education which prepared them to be productive citizens in the private economy.
A note from Wikipedia: [quote]The system of vocational training is perhaps the most important component of the German model, and is still very prevalent in the German educational system. In Germany, there is a much heavier emphasis on apprenticeships for skilled positions, taught by expert worker/instructors. As such, there is a lower percentage of university students in Germany when compared to other Western countries, and a much lower percentage of persons entering the workforce for on-the-job training.
Vocational training is required for a large number of occupations. At the end of vocational training, a highly-regarded certification qualification is awarded that is valid for a range of over 400 occupations. This is in stark difference to other European countries, where the number of controlled occupations is much smaller.
Critics cite inflexibility of the school system as the main disadvantage. Some 60% of graduates change their profession within 10 years of graduation.[/quote]
Rich, Thanks for reminding me of my other soapbox. I can’t believe I forgot education reform as one of the required pieces.
I completely agree that we need to significantly reform our crappy education system… including our higher learning system. My advocacy has been to leverage technology to reduce the cost and improve the information absorbtion for areas where this makes sense (generally grades 8-12), and then use the savings to redeploy human resources to help where they make sense (generally the younger grades).
It is interesting that you bring up auto-maker wages in Germany. I think I recently read that this is becoming a problem for them competing with Asian auto-makers creeping up on German craftmanship and quality standards. Hyundai for example is making very good high-end automobiles for a lot less than what German cars are selling for.
Nevertheless, there is a market for craftsmanship, quality and high-end products. I am fine if we pursue that type of thing and pay higher wages. The problem with the US is that we don’t have the education system to crank out these high-skilled workers. So, we are going to have trouble competing with Germany on a macro scale. We are more likely to compete with medium and low quality (i.e., low cost) producers. That being the case, employees of our auto-makers cannot continue to be paid double or triple what other Asian producers are making.
Related to this, I read that Japan auto-makers are struggling to compete with South Korea and China because of their social policy to keep jobs in Japan. The logical alternative is to reduce the wages of worker in Japan to retain jobs by growing market share by better competing on price.
Waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy off topic.
Don, there was/is a connection with the state of the economy being a source for our city budget problems. I was responding to that. Certainly greater state and local revenue would be a factor in this debate… Don’t you think?
We need to move ASAP to three person crews. There were only three on the Berkely fire truck I saw a few months ago.
Thanks to David Greenwald, Rich Rifkin and Michael Harrington for pounding on the issue.
The new City Council needs to show leadership in a number of ways.
This opportunity should be taken by them as rationally as can be achieved for savings and safety.
David Thompson
Jeff: it’s tangential to the main topic. When your point is tangential, please try for brevity. Thanks.
I wonder if the City Council can immediately reduce costs by directing the Fire Department to only approve overtime when staffing drops by more than 3 fire fighters per truck. So, if someone was ill, and staffing didn’t fall below 3 people per truck, no one would work be asked to work overtime to cover the absent fire fighter. If several people were ill on one shift and there were only 2 people for each truck, then fire fighters who worked at other stations could shift over to staff them, with no truck having less than 3 fire fighters.
It seemed to me that overtime costs was a huge amount.