Chief Suggests Way Forward to Three on an Engine – Interim Fire Chief Scott Kenley on Tuesday night presented the Davis City Council with a very thorough and massive report on the fire department. While the council did not act on the informational item on Tuesday, the plan is to bring the item back in the coming weeks as council sifts through the material and looks for ways to cut costs and possibly reduce staffing down to three on an engine.
As he wrote, “In 1999, the Department increased its authorized funded positions for suppression personnel from thirteen per shift to fifteen per shift with a minimum staffing of twelve.”
Critical to this analysis is the rise in the cost of benefits. Chief Kenley notes, “At the time, the collective wisdom in the industry was that overstaffing reduced overtime, and any day where there were extra personnel, station thirty-one staffing would increase to the point that the engine could be staffed with three or four in addition to the two assigned to the rescue. Over time, the benefit package increased, ultimately passing fifty-percent of salary. This caused the industry to re-assess the practice of overstaffing versus overtime.”
As Chief Kenley explained, overtime is not as people traditionally think of it, but rather the covering of shifts for people using their vacation time. For the most part, the city covered this last year by having three additional personnel on a shift.
The critical level is if the benefit package is under 40%, it is cheaper to have additional people on shift rather than people taking overtime. But when the benefit package rises above 40%, it is cheaper to pay people overtime because it reduces the number of employees and unfunded liabilities.
He proposes that this shift be accomplished through attrition.
Another big change in his report is the idea of moving from 14 firefighters on a shift down to 12. The current level of services is defined by the city as a five-minute response time with four people on a fire engine.
Over a decade ago, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) created the existing rules regarding what is commonly known as “two-in and two-out,” which refers to OSHA’s Respiratory Protection Standard in which the “two-in” standard was added to the already-existing “two-out” requirement for standby personnel to be stationed outside.
He wrote, “As a result of this change in the respiratory protection requirements, the City of Davis increased its minimum staffing on all engines to four personnel.”
Chief Kenley called this a good policy at the time, but said that in the last five years this has become a subject of discussion that has brought about the present analysis.
The city has a five-minute response time goal still in effect, despite recommendations by Citygate Associates, LLC, to extend that time to 7 minutes. As Chief Kenley told the council, that goal surpasses the industry’s norm. The National Fire Protection Aassociation (NFPA) 1710 industry norm for medical responses is six minutes and for a structure fire response, it’s 6:20.
The current plan, he said, is about 50 seconds more aggressive in travel time than the industry norm would ask the city to do. The three-year data shows that the five-minute goal is attained about 42 percent of the time, and the proposed goal of seven minutes is attained about 72 percent of the time.
The four-minute travel time goal is accomplished 74% of the time.
The discrepancy is largely in the time it takes the crew to assemble, which takes about 2 minutes compared with the 1:20 recommendation and the one-minute policy in the city’s general plan.
“If the City were to adopt the Citygate recommended seven-minute response time goal, the Department would meet its stated response times eighty-two percent (82%) of the time, analyzed over the past three Fiscal Years,” Chief Kenley writes.” Instead of being forty-eight percent (48%) below its stated response time goal, the Department would be only eight percent (8%) below.”
Chief Scott Kenley also presented the council with some alternative staffing models, but he said, “It has always been my opinion that the level of fire services in a community is set by the policy makers.”
As Chief Kenley notes in his report, “The current minimum staffing level of four personnel per station has been in effect since 1999. Over the past five years, several articles have been written in the local newspaper, the Davis Enterprise and a local internet site, the People’s Vanguard of Davis, concerning the four person staffing model.”
He adds, “At the center of the criticism is the cost of the four person staffing and the fact that a majority of fire agencies throughout the state and nation staff their engines with only three personnel.”
He noted that back in 1999 the department convinced the city council that four-person staffing was necessary in order to meet the new OSHA standard.
He presents four alternatives: First, in which the staffing remains at 12 with four people on an engine; second, eleven with a five-person staff at Station 31 (three on engine and two on rescue) with three staffing Stations 32 and 33; third, ten with the exception for severe weather conditions with four people at Station 31; and the fourth alternative of ten people, period, with no exceptions.
The alternative models could project between a $359,000 and a $560,000 savings.
He said that in his three-year review, there were 15 working structure fires, five per year, and in only two of these was there “the potential for a delayed interior attack. In one of the incidents reviewed, the attack was made from the exterior by the first arriving engine company; therefore, two-in, two-out was not an issue.”
“If the only justification for four person staffing is the ability to make an interior attack on a structure fire with the first arriving engine, a case could be made that the cost of maintaining four person staffing is not offset by the reduction in fire loss or the cost of rebuilding,” Chief Kenley writes. He notes, “In a study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), published in April 2010, a four person crew can perform typical tasks on the fire ground between twenty to thirty seconds faster than a three person crew.”
With that said, he notes, “The ability to make an interior attack with the first arriving engine or reduce by twenty to thirty seconds the time it takes to perform a task on the fire ground is not the only benefit of four-person staffing. Do not forget the concept of concentration of resources. Currently the Department can amass sixteen firefighting personnel at the scene of a structure fire. If the engine company staffing were reduced to three person at two stations, the on scene staffing would be reduced to fourteen.”
Firefighter Union President Bobby Weist spoke during public comment. He was critical of the report, saying its “flavor seemed to be money – nowhere in there did it say it was going to improve the service, that it’s going to give the citizens a better service than they’re getting – I don’t think it can be done without another station and continuing what we’re doing.”
Mr. Weist seemed to mock the changes to the response times. “Sure we can meet the response time if we go from four to eight to twelve, now 20. If it took us a half hour to get to the call – we’re going to get there within a half hour anywhere in the city…”
He told the council that with 12 staff members, “We will be working overtime every single day.”
He argued this reduction would send overtime “up through the roof,” though he never addressed the chief’s point which was the tradeoff of overtime versus benefits that the city would have to pay each additional firefighter at the level of benefits that are currently provided.
He noted, that it would put wear and tear on the firefighters, as well. He said, “I’m away from my family, we don’t have the opportunity to rest.”
“There are many nights we are up 24 hours responding to calls,” he continued. “If you’d like I can give you a call each time I go out and remind you of that.”
“It just seems like you were very dismissive of the single family dwelling which the chief acknowledged, more than likely that was the biggest fires that you were going to have or the most fires you are going to have,” Mr. Weist said. He argued that this was the biggest killer of firefighters and civilians, rather than the big warehouse fire.
Matt Williams spoke, as well, noting that the report did not seem to address the high proportion of medical calls versus actual fires.
The Vanguard was told that this issue is under consideration, as well, but was not ready for presentation.
— David M. Greenwald reporting
well we get our first proposal for going to three on an engine?
is it me or is weist coming across as whiny here?
12 years after I raised the 4 person crew issue, finally the CC has a consultant recommending changes. How many millions have been completely thrown away? (David, Rich, Matt, anyone want to calculate the figure?)
This one issue makes the millions of the 2004 Measure S tax increase that was for parks and family programs and stolen by Saylor and Souza and given 100% to fund the 2005 fire fighter raises seem like small change.
Meanwhile, we have no more city tree trimmers. Or affordable children’s programs.
Anyone noticed the sad apology for a city garden that is on the SE corner of the 5th and B intersection, kitty corner across from the old High School gym? That used to be a very nice entrance to Central Park and looked great across of cityhall. It changed and the flowers were taken out about the time the Fire Dept union was raiding city coffers under Saylor and Souza’s leadership. No more budget for parks and rec after that. Measure S tax money was stolen from all of us.
“finally the CC has a consultant recommending changes.”
it’s the interim fire chief not a consultant
“Meanwhile, we have no more city tree trimmers. “
the city has tree trimmers.
“city” tree trimmers. City employees. I like the fact that city employees provide our services. Just like I support city W-2 city employees operating our water system. City employees are directly responsible to the City Manager, who reports to our electeds. It’s a good governance thing.
[i]”As Chief Kenley explained, overtime is not as people traditionally think of it, but rather the covering of shifts for people using their vacation time.”[/i]
I have long known that city employees get too much paid time off. On average they get double the paid time off as people who work in the private sector for vacation time. If this City Council chooses to reduce fire staffing and if that results in more need for off-duty personnel to fill in, it is imperative that this Council (in the next MOU or in the terms it imposes) greatly reduces the number of vacation days for firefighters.
Currently, firefighters get 20 days every 30-day month off work. That is not vacation or holiday time. That is the number of “weekend” days for them. So every 360 days, they are not working on 240 of them; and they are working 120 days (minus paid vacation leave, paid sick leave, paid jury duty leave, etc.)
Additionally, firefighters get 12 paid holidays. (Other city employees get 14.5.) This is not additional time off for fire or police. It is simply just a big expense for taxpayers.
Firefighters get 10 days of paid vacation time per year from the day they are hired. That might not sound like much. But it represents 10 out of 120 days or 8.33% of their work schedule. The amount of vacation time holds steady until their 6th year, when they get 15 paid vacation days (12.5%); and it slowly increases until they reach 15 years of service, when they get 20 days per year of paid vacation time off (16.67%).
I am not sure why firefighters deserve one single day of paid vacation per year. They are only on duty 1/3rd of the year. Isn’t 2/3rds of the time not at work enough rest and relaxation time?
The typical private sector middle management worker labors 251 days and gets 10 days of paid vacation. His vacation days/workdays ratio is 3.83%. Veteran Davis firefighters are getting 4.35 times as much vacation as a share of their workdays.
Granted, the difference is that the firefighters’ duty time per day is a full 24 hours, 3 times that of the typical worker. But even on a busy day, firefighters are not fighting fires all or most of that time. Even on a busy day most Davis firefighters are engaged in non-work activities (including sleeping, shopping, cooking, eating, washing dishes, etc.) much of that 24 hours.
A veteran firefighter, someone like Capt. Weist, gets 20 days of paid vacation out of his 120 days he is scheduled to work. Because we need to backfill with time-and-a-half overtime to cover for these 20 vacation days, the overtime expense is now a serious burden and it will only grow worse if the staffing model changes (as I believe it needs to). I hope we have a majority now on the Council willing to address this unnecessary expense.
[i]”He proposes that this shift be accomplished through attrition.”[/i]
It saves much less than laying off people. But I believe this is the moral approach. I don’t think any junior firefighters deserve to be laid off.
[i]”The alternative models could project between a $359,000 and a $560,000 savings.”[/i]
Chief Kenley did not show the math to explain how he got to these numbers. However, I think he is wrong. The savings, I believe, will be substantially higher. Even if the result is much more paid overtime (which it does not have to be), my math suggests we will save much more than Chief Kenley said.
He must be underestimating the costs (going forward) of pension funding, or he might be presuming that the cost of that benefit will not be inflating at all. Same thing with retiree medical costs. I would not be surprised if his cost savings estimate leaves out that cost entirely. And I suspect he did not fully account for the cost-savings of all the other aspects of total compensation, other than cafeteria, salary and pension funding.
“Currently, firefighters get 20 days every 30-day month off work. That is not vacation or holiday time. That is the number of “weekend” days for them. So every 360 days, they are not working on 240 of them; and they are working 120 days (minus paid vacation leave, paid sick leave, paid jury duty leave, etc.)”
Okay, so here is how I understand this working. Each FFer works 122 – 24 hour shifts a year. There are three shifts and 12 to a shift so that means 36 people work those 122 shifts a year. That is the equivalent to work 366 – 8 hour shifts a year. So I’m not sure they are really getting as much time off as you portray.
Previously they used additional employees to fill those shifts for illness or vacation. Now instead of hiring people they will use overtime.
[i]”That is the equivalent to work 366 – 8 hour shifts a year. So I’m not sure they are really getting as much time off as you portray.”[/i]
They are not equivalent at all.
For every three 8-hour shifts, how many hours does a typical worker get to sleep on the job? Davis firefighters normally are able to sleep 8 hours out of 24, although it may be interrupted sleep.
For every three 8-hour shifts, how many hours does a typical worker get to shop for groceries on the job? For every three 8-hour shifts, how many hours does a typical worker get to prepare and cook his meals on the job? For every three 8-hour shifts, how many hours does a typical worker get to wash his own just-used dishes on the job? For every three 8-hour shifts, how many hours does a typical worker get to watch TV on the job?
There are a lot of fire departments which do not pay any salary at all to their firefighters for all of the hours they are on “duty” time. They deduct time off every shift for sleeping and for meals and so on. We could do that in Davis, too. We don’t. We pay them for all 24 hours, no matter if no calls come in at all.
[i]”Davis firefighters normally are able to sleep 8 hours out of 24, although it may be interrupted sleep.”[/i]
Compare the DFD with the DPD. Davis police officers work their entire shifts. They don’t get paid to sleep at work. They don’t get paid to shop for groceries. They don’t get paid to cook meals and so on.
I am not against having our firefighters do these non-work activities at work. That is the nature of the job. My objection is to the claim that their 24 hours of duty time is at all equal to anyone else’s 24 hours of work time.
That’s a fair point. It’s worth noting that when I did my ridealong with police officers in and out of Davis, the issue of being paid to sleep, and the amount of downtown as well as the relative imbalance in pay came up. I am surprised how consistent the resentment is from police officers.
It would be interesting to see what a 12 hour work model might look like.
It would be an easy fix to give the Fire Fighters actual shifts, rather than 3-4 24 hour periods. I don’t know why they do this. It can’t be good to have guys working with no sleep on busy shifts.
David: I took some police cruiser ride alongs a couple of times, and found it fascinating. I admire the Davis PD very much.
Are you planning on running an article about your ridealong? Maybe I missed it?
Also, I think it would be triple fascinating if the Yolo Sheriff Dept would take you out on a ridealong. You write about their public service all the time. A ridealong would be most interesting for an article or two.
Do any DE reporters go on ridealongs?
M
Off Topic, mike.
Rifs
We have had this discussion before, but I am going to make the point again. Firefighters, like doctors who take in house call, are not “paid to sleep, or shop, or do dishes”. They are paid to be instantaneously available to be at top performance whenever an emergency occurs.With regard to sleep, I can vouch for the fact that being awakened from sleep and having to transition and perform immediately takes a high toll both physically and emotionally. Any of you who have served in combat positions will also recognize that this is true.
There are a couple of differences from how doctors are fed and how their dishes get done. Hospitals have cafeterias so that the docs have food availability 24/7 while on the job. Perhaps you would be in favor of hiring someone who would be paid less to provide the firefighters with meals and housekeeping ? Perhaps you think they could bring 24 hours worth of food from home and heat it in a microwave. But, I can tell you on an eight hour shift how much time private sector middle managers typically get for one meal on an eight hour shift and that is one hour. They typically get the one hour whether they bring lunch from home or pick something up from Safeway or go to In and Out. So making this equivalent for the firefighters would mean that they each would be entitled to 3 hours for meal preparation, consumption, and clean up per 24 hour shift.
Do you have evidence that they are using more ?