Nearly six months after Chief Scott Kenley’s audit report recommended the city move from four on an engine down to three, the Davis City Council voted by a 3-2 margin to reduce overall staffing to 11 firefighters while looking at either moving or adding a fire station in northern Davis to better align the city’s resources.
Councilmember Brett Lee moved the staff report. His motion was seconded by Councilmember Rochelle Swanson who stipulated that her support was conditioned on approval of a friendly amendment that would call for the city to either move the central fire station to the northeast of central Davis or add one in the future.
Ms. Swanson hammered those who she said insinuated that anyone calling for a change in the status quo was somehow anti-firefighter. She talked about the city’s infrastructure needs and argued that the city has long discussed the need for having another fire station up north.
She implored her colleagues not to simply rely on developers to help the city build that infrastructure. While she was not opposed to looking into ways that the Cannery developers could assist the city, she did not want the discussion limited to developer fees.
Brett Lee accepted the substitute motion.
The firefighters and a handful of members of the public spoke that this move was based on budgetary considerations and was not taking into account public safety.
Captain Joe Tenney and Captain Emily Lo would charge that these changes were made not by fire professionals who are practitioners of the profession, but rather by people in city government with no direct knowledge of fire service.
It was a notion that City Manager Steve Pinkerton took exception to, noting the work not only of former interim Chief Scott Kenley but also of Shawn Kinney, one of the city’s division chiefs.
Responding to some of the public comments, Mr. Kinney argued that decoupling the rescue apparatus from the engine company is not indeed not creating a new unit. He said it is a half unit, not an engine company, but the change gives the city more flexibility and allows the fire engines in the outlying stations to remain in their own area more often, allowing them faster response times and more consistent service.
As Police Chief Landy Black put it, by decoupling the rescue apparatus, it allows engines to stay in their assigned area of responsibility rather than moving to Station 31 to backfill when they get a call.
Mr. Kinney agreed with the firefighters’ concerns arguing that four on an engine is clearly better than three. “What this comes down to is four is better than three,” he said. However, he argued that the Kenley plan allows for the increased ability to respond with a quicker and more agile force that, in many cases, can eventually bring more units to bear on an emergency. For instance, in an auto accident, the rescue apparatus would be deployed along with the three-person engine from the local area.
Under the current model, the entire Station 31 would have to respond, leaving a huge portion of the community uncovered while they respond to the auto accident.
While the firefighters would argue that they tried to decouple the rescue apparatus back in the 1980s and they floundered because there was no supervisor, Mr. Kinney responded that, under the current division chief model, a division chief is able to go to the scene to better manage the incidents.
Councilmember Brett Lee agreed that four is superior to three. However, he laid out the budgetary scenario where the city is facing a huge structural deficit and the reality is that we have additional expenses coming up in terms of paying on average an additional $5 to $8 million per year to fix the city’s streets.
Councilmember Lee told the council, ‘We just don’t have the money to maintain the status quo. It’s not a matter if we cut, but how much we cut. No area of city service is going to remain untouched by that.”
“The budget information is sobering,” he said. “This is just the beginning, we’re going to have other areas where we need to make cuts on.”
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs said that he believes we have already achieved significant savings and we will save more when we get a new contract.
He said that, while he supported the increased response time and boundary drop, he is not on board with regard to staffing cuts.
He said that we have been told that we need this because everyone else has three on an engine.
“Davis has never been one to follow the leader,” he said. “Davis always marches to a different drummer, and we should stick to our own path and stick with four-person engines.”
He argued that in both the case of West Sacramento and Woodland, while they indeed have three-person engines, both cities have more fire stations and firefighters on duty.
“Public safety has been one of the top stated goals,” he said. “It’s about making sure that the public is safe. Council members have had to make tough choices, those are not changing,” He argued that 70% of city employees are on new labor paths, which is saving the city money.
“At this point, I’m not there yet, I’m not convinced this is the best for the city and public safety,” he concluded.
Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk argued that this is fundamentally a budget issue and he is “not convinced that service levels improve.”
“This is mainly about budgetary savings. I respect that,” he said. “To me that’s how I’m viewing this issue. We are in a new financial era and the old way of doing things is no longer tenable.”
Mayor Pro Tem Wolk would argue that, while he believes we need to do things a new way, we still have difficult choices to make and in the area of public safety, he would much rather see the costs cut in the MOU than service reductions.
“I’m not going to support this motion. I don’t see this move as the way we get there,” he said.
Mayor Joe Krovoza argued that “in no way is anything we are doing here a critique of the outstanding fire service that our community gets from our current fire department.”
“That said, for the last three years, we are facing huge structural deficits in the city and they continue to loom,” he said.
He then responded to the comment that $435,000 a year was nothing in the face of the city’s budget deficit.
“$435,000 a year, year over year, in this budget is significant,” he said. “The compensation savings that the other units have provided to the city is extremely significant. The savings that we have not gotten from the two units that we have not come to settlement with yet is harming us, putting us in a worse position.”
“Other programs in the city will be cut because we have not come to settlement with all of negotiating groups – fire and DCEA – that is simply the way it is,” he said.
“What is this about? It starts with budget,” he said. “But there’s no question that any organization… has to take a hard look at its organization, its processes, its systems…”
“We have gone from 425 employees down to 375 employees. That has come at great costs to departments and services across the city,” he said. “We have actually found ways that we can do better and we have. Am I saying that service is going to improve as a result of this? No I’m not going to say that. I don’t think anyone has said, if they have said it, I’m not endorsing that.”
“But have we thought hard about how we can do better with our existing resources?” he asked. “I think that we have.”
He argued it was irresponsible that they would support boundary drop without looking at ways to help the entire budget. He supported the motion and thinks it will put the city in a great position to move forward.
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs and Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk, in dissent, noted that they are supportive of the move of the fire station to north Davis. They simply do not support the staffing reduction.
Councilmember Brett Lee implored the city to hire a full time chief, which was clearly a source of frustration for the firefighters. The rest of the council agreed with that, as well.
And with that 3-2 vote, Davis has undertaken a major change that we have been pushing for, for nearly five years.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I watched the meeting last night and found it incredulous how Frerichs and Wolk were reaching deep to try and find a way to legitimize keeping four on an engine. Almost everytime they came up with some scenario they got shot down by staff, who by the way were very well prepared. In my opinion Frerichs and Wolk lost a lot of credibility last night and I hope most Davisites saw this too and will vote them both out.
Secondly, we need to move the station, not add another station. By adding what savings have we achieved? I can now see that as the next firefighter battle to be fought. I feel Swanson should’ve just put move a station in her ammendment instead of the move/add verbage.
Kudos to Lee, Swanson and Krovoza. Rotten tomatoes to Wolk and Frerichs. This was the right decision, and I think the latter two put politics before civic responsibility.
.
The votes are always going to be difficult when choosing what to cut. I hope Lucas and Dan have other solutions for the budget problems. If they don’t, they are wrong here.
Even before this vote, I could imagine that Wolk and Frerichs have had their eyes more set on a political future beyond Davis City Council than Lee, Krovoza, or Swanson. Their votes fit this lens.
GI: It’s obvious to me that Rochelle was looking for a softer landing spot and she knows darn well we don’t have the money to employ 9 to 12 additional firefighters to staff a new fire station in the near future.
agree with all these comments about Dan and Lucas and the positive comments about Steve Pinkerton, who was impressive.
Very transparent for the former, almost pathetic digging for more ‘non reasons’ to delay the vote. They will need to win back MY vote in future.
Just letting people know, I have a commentary that I’ve completed but won’t post until 11 just to space things out a bit. But it has some insights and some plaudits.
I agree anonymous and if that’s the case do we really want council members who are more concerned about their political futures than what is right for our city? I might be wrong, but I sensed from their deliberations that they knew how bad they were coming off.
Lucas and Dan favored trying to cut the fire budget by other means, probably through contract negotiations, in order to maintain the highest level of public safety. Lucas pointed out that the fire budget has already been cut by around a million dollars. It seemed more a dispute about methodology than intent with neither Dan or Lucas saying they would be against this change if no alternatives were reached in the future. Rather than being against this change they both said ” They are not there yet.”
Instead of projecting their motives people should focus on what they said. What was interesting was how all the council members behaved. it was refreshing to have the debate and the vote without all the acrimony.
Toad, we need to do both. Contract cuts in [b]addition[/b] to the cuts in staffing. City staff showed how safety will hardly be affected by going to 11 with the addition of UCD. I like how I think it was Swanson who said that our community is both the city and the campus and should be working together.
It was unclear how this would happen with UCD and not cost more. THey will be busier with this plan, right?
Toad, I disagree….their motives came across as weak to me….fumbling for more reasons.
Contract talks may NOT progress and if they had not voted for 3 man trucks last night and the talks not progress, then where are we?
and where was Bobby?
Good job Krovoza, Swanson, and Lee. I look forward to substantive progress on the MOU.
-Michael Bisch
Word I’m getting is its headed for impasse, but the city will do things correctly and therefore we won’t hear much for a few more months. The firefighters ignored my suggestion a few months ago that accepting the labor agreement might have helped them on this issue.
i’m starting to regret my vote for Dan and Lucas. i’m concerned very much about teh future. there are rumors that rochelle won’t run. there are rumors that joe will run for assembly. now someone like alan fernandes getting on the council, puts a majority there supporting the firefighters on staffing.
“i’m starting to regret my vote for Dan and Lucas.”
That is why they call voting suffrage. In politics you don’t get everything you want, but, in this case you still won the vote overall. The question should be not did they vote the way you want every time or did they do so more than someone else would.
Fernandes came in third in a 4 way race for two seats for school board I doubt he will run for council any time soon especially since there will only be two seats open.
my point is that the 3-2 vote is precarious.
btw, it’s not one vote. dan was clearly pandering when he voted for davis diamonds, fortunately the city forced that bad move to be undone. he was clearly pandering when he went against staff and the wac on loge-williams. he was arrogant and refused to allow the wac even to discuss loge-williams, the move backfired and he had to relent. most recently brett lee made a good faith move on not demanding representation on wac, but wanted to be able to fill the next vacancy, only to have dan wolk arrogantly turn him away. yeah, i’m not happy with dan.
Anonymous said “Even before this vote, I could imagine that Wolk and Frerichs have had their eyes more set on a political future beyond Davis City Council than Lee, Krovoza, or Swanson.”
While Davis Progressive said “There are rumors that joe will run for assembly.”
So who took the most expedient vote?
Instead of inferring that this vote was about political ambition why not take them all at their word that it was about public safety, budget realities, and different approaches to resolving those conflicting goals.
joe’s going to face the wrath of unions now. the unions will likely help dan or lucas like they did mariko. Joe is now Christopher Calbaldon. Dan will be his mother or Mariko. personally i respect calbaldon more.
I will say this again: I am very impressed with Brett Lee. Good job to Rochelle and Joe, too.
“personally i respect calbaldon more.”
Cabaldon is an anti-teacher union shill for Eli Broad. So that explains much about your world view.
Toad: “Instead of projecting their motives people should focus on what they said. What was interesting was how all the council members behaved. it was refreshing to have the debate and the vote without all the acrimony.”
Toad: “Cabaldon is an anti-teacher union shill for Eli Broad. So that explains much about your world view.”
i wish you would take your own advice.
Cabaldon recently backed the worst candidate for school board in West Sac. Even the Sac Bee expressed dismay. Why? Cabaldon has a day job at Ed Voice an anti-union education advocacy group funded by Eli Broad, the same person who funds Michelle Rhee.
so the comment above only refers to those officeholders that you agree with.
To get back on subject, there were times last night when Frerichs and Wolk were speaking that I felt we were back with the Saylor, Souza and Admundson council.
Huh?
We needed the change in staffing that we just got thanks to Brett, Rochelle and Joe AND we need the station to move to the more strategic location. We need to be more EFFICIENT with spending in every way possible. Efficiency is not a net loss for a change but doing more with less.
“there were times last night when Frerichs and Wolk were speaking that I felt we were back with the Saylor, Souza and Admundson council.’
Seems you are living in the past, there were no fireworks last night of the type previous council members would employ. There was simply an honest discussion about public safety and budget realities, There was a 3-2 vote and the fire department took a cut. That never happened with that previous council. It is clear times have changed.
Yes Toad, we’re all already aware that the council plays nice now. I was coming from a policy perspective. What they said is about what I believe we would have heard from the gang of 3.
mr. toad is really looking the wrong way. i smell two guys who were selling themselves out.
Mr.Toad wrote:
> Cabaldon recently backed the worst candidate for
> school board in West Sac. Even the Sac Bee expressed
> dismay. Why? Cabaldon has a day job at Ed Voice an
> anti-union education advocacy group funded by Eli
> Broad, the same person who funds Michelle Rhee.
Cabaldron is one of a growing number of Democrats (along with the growing DFER movement that I have personally donated to) that has decided that his job is not to protect bad teachers and do anything the union tells him to do but to try and do what is best for the kids (especially poor minority kids stuck in crappy “dropout factories”).
And Growth Izzue
> To get back on subject, there were times last
> night when Frerichs and Wolk were speaking that
> I felt we were back with the Saylor, Souza and
> Admundson council.
I’m guessing it won’t be long until Dan dusts off the old “Wolk for Assembly” (or maybe the newer “Wolk for Senate”) signs in his Mom’s garage (and after meeting Lucas I know he wants more than to hold elected office in little old Davis). As Mr.Toad points out in the political world today not doing EVERYTHING a union wants you to do to (even a single vote against a minor union position) will brand you as “anti-union” and the union cash you need as a Democrat to run for statewide office will dry up…
Hopefully more and more people will start to focus on the issues that are important to them and not just vote for the person that has the most (union paid for) signs and (union paid for radio and TV spots)…
It was clear that last night’s decision was one of the toughest this Council has had to make. All three Council members who voted in favor of the motion acknowledged that this was indeed a reduction in service.
“Am I going to say service is going to improve as a result of this? No, I’m not going to say that.” – Joe Krovoza
“Sure, four is better than three; if we can do best-case for everything we would have that across the board.” – Rochelle Swanson
“As much as I would like to see fire service improved…we just don’t have the money to maintain the status quo, so the question is not if we cut, it’s what we cut.” – Brett Lee
The same was acknowledged by Division Chief Shawn Kinney, who said, “what this comes down to is four is better than three.”
With that in mind, I think we should pump the brakes on the accusations flying toward the two dissenting Council members, Lucas Frerichs and Dan Wolk, that their votes last night could not possibly be about public safety and must be the result of some ulterior motive. If you disagree with their position on the issue, by all means express said disagreement. But questioning one’s motives undermines our political discourse. It also relies on a lot of assumptions about the future based purely on speculation.
There is a lot of speculation afoot in this thread. Case in point:
“there are rumors that rochelle won’t run” – Davis Progressive
That’s not what I hear.
David wrote:
> I am not sure that she (Rochelle) would have voted for
> the staffing change without the accompanying move of
> the station
David also wrote (in a previous post):
> while looking at either moving or adding a fire station
> in northern Davis
I’m wondering why he didn’t mention “adding” a 4th fire station (that the union wants) in this post?
Even if we never built a 4th station “moving” the central station will cost far more than keeping 4 firefighters on a truck for more than a decade.
Building a replacement station will give the firefighters union a nicer place to work, eat and sleep and will also give the construction unions lots of high paying government work (plus enable the city to write lots more checks to “friends”/aka campaign donors like ADA consultants, EIR consultants, landscapers etc.)
“As Mr.Toad points out in the political world today not doing EVERYTHING a union wants you to do to (even a single vote against a minor union position) will brand you as “anti-union” and the union cash you need as a Democrat to run for statewide office will dry up..”
you are putting words in my mouth I never said anything remotely along those lines. As for Cabaldon I didn’t bring him up. I was simply pointing out that that he has a day job working for an outfit that is funded by a totally anti-teacher union billionaire. For some reason some who post here believe it is okay to be on an anti-teacher union guys policy group funded payroll but it is wrong to be supported by the largest teachers union in the state. A union once counted myself as a member. Go figure?