Many Comparable Cities Have Gone To Three Person Engines –
Many Comparable Cities Have Gone To Three Person Engines – “ONE IMPORTANT reform the city of Davis needs is to reduce its staffing in the Fire Department. Our city got along perfectly well with three firefighters on duty per shift at each of the city’s three firehouses until 1999. Yet for the past 10 years, the policy has been to have at least four on duty at the South Davis and West Davis stations and seven or more firefighters at all times at the downtown station.
A minimum of four is unnecessary and unaffordable.
The Davis Fire Department can meet all the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration with our former standard of three people per shift.
The great majority of calls the DFD responds to every year do not require our firefighters to enter a burning building. When that is required, Chief Rose Conroy can send six people on two trucks to fight the fire, so two firefighters will be able to enter the hazardous structure if necessary, and at least two others will be outside to make sure the two inside have back-up and rescue when called for.
According to data acquired by The Enterprise through a public records request, the Davis Fire Department employed 46 firefighters in 2008. Every one of them earned more than $100,000 in annual salary, overtime, pension and health benefits. Because they are so expensive to the city, we cannot afford to keep more firefighters than is necessary on the payroll.”
The Vanguard goes further in examining this question. On February 24, we examined the cost per service call in Davis compared to other comparable stations. At time, it was determine that Davis ranked fourth in cost per service call among those stations, and the highest of those department that only provide basic rather than advanced life support services. Those that rank higher also fund ambulance and full paramedic services.
The Vanguard examines the same 12 fire departments on this question.
The Vanguard found that only two other cities have primarily four person fire engines like Davis does. That would be Folsom and West Sacramento. San Luis Obispo does have a four person truck which has a ladder. Woodland has one four person fire engine but they are going to phase that out in the near future. Berkeley previously had a few four person trucks, but phased them out to three.
This is not the end of the story. The Fire Department would undoubtedly respond that in addition to looking at how many firefighters staff a fire engine, you need to look at the total number of firefighters available at a given time.
This is tricky point to evaluate. Davis is the only one of these cities to have only three stations. From our previous data Davis is second only to Vacaville in terms of population per station ratio. Each station in Davis serves an average of nearly 21,000 people whereas San Luis Obispo it’s just under 11,000, 9,000 in West Sacramento, and 8,000 in Palo Alto which has the most fire stations per capita. Davis also has the second fewer firefighters per 1000 people with 0.71 compared to one and three-quarters per 1000 in Palo Alto and 1.35 in West Sacramento.
On the other hand, Davis just does not get the frequency and number of service calls that other cities gets. Davis had the fewer average service calls of any city, the fewest service calls per thousand, West Sacramento and Palo Alto had the most with more than twice the rate of Davis. Thus Davis ranks in the middle in service calls per station and fourth from the bottom in service calls per firefighter.
Another important note, those calls per population are somewhat distorted because in the other college towns, the fire department provides fire service to the universities. Thus Berkeley Fire provides service to UC Berkeley, Palo Alto Fire provides service to Stanford, San Luis Obispo fire provides service to Cal Poly, and Chico fire to Chico State.
Davis on the other hand does not provide fire to UC Davis. UC Davis has one engine and one truck company. That means that in a real emergency Davis has access by mutual aid agreement to four engines and one truck which are on duty at all times.
Thus under the rare possibility of a true emergency, the city of Davis has plenty of help that might as well be within the city limits.
In short, our analysis shows that Davis is the exception rather than the rule in terms of fire staffing with four person fire engines. And arguments that we need to look at the number of fire stations fail to account for the fact that UC Davis has its own fire service right next door.
Commentary
While catching our collective breaths from the sudden show of fiscal concern from the Davis Enterprise, it is important to examine this issue more thoroughly.
For one thing, the fire department will certainly argue, perhaps correctly, that while scaling back to three person teams may make fiscal sense, it is bound to put us in some risk to public safety.
I would argue anecdotally that we need to have a broader view of what a public safety risk is and how it occurs. As I have pointed out on these pages numerous times, police and fire are not the only city departments that have an impact on public safety. Again, I point out that we are facing something on the order of $13 million in unmet needs. Much of that is unrepaired or upgraded roadways and other infrastructure. Our inability to finance these needed projects in essence is a public safety risk, every bit as great as the more remote possibility that we need a fourth fire fighter responding to every single call in this city.
One thing that needs to be made clear is that there is no intention by critics of the amount of money that the city spends on fire service to cut back on the quality of service. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the city can continue to provide top notched fire service at a rate that does not jeopardize either the fiscal health of the city or other aspects of public safety.
The Vanguard urges the city to find creative solutions that can enable it to continue to provide a high level of service while reducing the cost per call to a more reasonable and sustainable level. There ought to be hybrid models that can account for the fact that most calls are not for actual fires but rather for medical emergencies. There ought to be creative ways to staff the department to take advantage of the type of calls we normally receive while at the same time enable us to be prepared for the extremely rare big event.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good story Vanguard. It seems that the city spends too much money in areas where it can scale back. I hope the city heeds your advice. It’s time for some council members to stop paying back political favors with salaries and benefits and start addressing the needs of city and the tax payers of Davis.
Perhaps the fourth spot on the engine could be handled by a volunteer. That would eliminate about 25% of the cost without adding risk.
Once, about ten years ago, at twilight on a hot, dry summer day, I called the fire department for advice because there was a persistent SMELL of smoke in the air. There were at least one fire engine parked in front of my house with flashing lights and several firemen out on the street. I was msotly embarrassed to have such a commotion in front of my house. Perhaps one fireman in a car could have done the job of checking out a citizen concern.
I have great admiration for the skills and dedication of firemen; I’ve seen them at work and it is impressive. However, I wonder if this level of response is per regulation. In these times of budget deficits, perhaps an evaluation of necessary and unnecessary responses should be considered.
Let’s face it. We need to cut the number of firemen down to three per team, period. I assume the firefighters contracts are terminable-at-will, so let’s get going!
Won’t happen. The firefighters union bought and paid for job security by supporting the political ambitions of the City Council majority. Hence this city will face bankruptcy before any firefighters are let go. Well, if Davis faces bankruptcy, it will be a bankruptcy judge who will renegotiate the firefighters’ now lucrative and unsustainable contracts, just as the bankruptcy judge is doing in Vallejo.
The current Council majority “fronts” for their local developer patrons whose interests are advanced with ballooning Davis budget deficits. Deficits must be made up with higher local taxes. This strategy calls for “squeezing” the Davis voters until they accept massive peripheral residential developments for the one-time infusion of development payments to the city that they bring.
Also the fire department has a separate but mutually beneficial interest. The added development means it is more likely to get their pet projects like a fourth fire station and a ladder vehicle.
Replace the whole bunch with volunteers and make some serious savings. There is no reason we couldn’t do this. Volunteers routinely work shifts that would let them stay at the station, cook food and watch TV just like real firemen… Volunteers get all the same training, use the same equipment etc., just do it for a fraction of the cost to the community.
The fourth fireman was just union featherbedding in the first place.
[i]”Let’s face it. We need to cut the number of firemen down to three per team, period. I assume the firefighters contracts are terminable-at-will, so let’s get going!”[/i]
As I wrote in my column on this topic, we can go back to a minimum of three per shift staffing (which is what we had until 1999) without firing any current firefighters. Doing so would likely save city taxpayers about a half a million dollars a year in overtime. (For details on how and why, see my column in the March 18 Davis Enterprise.) If we have a choice, I think it is far more decent to not take away anyone’s livelihood.
[i]”The Vanguard found that only two other cities have primarily four person fire engines like Davis does.”[/i]
I appreciate your research on this, David. I had intended to do a survey of the sort you did, but I flaked on it before I wrote my column. I did, however, speak with the former city manager of Chico (who happens to be my Uncle Fred), and he told me that three is the normal shift standard in cities the size of Davis, but four is more common in older, larger and more densely built cities (like San Francisco and Oakland).
[i]”The fourth fireman was just union featherbedding in the first place.”[/i]
I don’t know if that is true. It might be; might not be. It must be understood that the 4-man policy came into effect after a 1998 change in OSHA standards (which still is in place). OSHA requires “two-in, two-out,” when firefighters enter a burning building or a building with known hazards, such as a chemical spill. If the DFD went back to three-man shifts, we would still have to have four-man teams in the relatively rare instances they need to enter a hazardous or burning structure. If most of the calls the DFD responded to were of this nature, it would make sense to have four-per-shift, as we could handle these issues with one truck, the first one on the scene. With three-man crews, they will have to wait for a second truck to show up before they entered a building on fire. Yet the reality is in Davis, these instances are extremely rare; and thus it just is not necessary to have four-man crews on hand 99.95% of the time.
Part of their funding justification is based on the number of calls they respond to. Why do they need two trucks with flashing lights every time a kid falls off his bike? How many FIRES do they actually respond to? And what is the status of their request for a Hoovercraft? Just wondering.
California is unique to the volunteer fire service for many reasons including the amount of training required to be a volunteer firefighter is much greater in California vs. the majority of the United States. Many volunteer fire departments fail to adhere to the standards required by law and use the excuse “their just volunteers” to justify the lack of training. Also a “unique to California law” is the law that requires the fire department to have people trained to the same standard for the same position. In other words, a fire department cannot have one paid firefighter trained to one standard and a volunteer trained to a different standard, working in the same capacity.
Why is it ok to have volunteer firefighters? The job of firefighting is so much more than fighting fires and requires an enormous amount of training. Why is it ok to put the job of saving lives into the hands of a volunteer who has less training and experience? I just don’t get that. There are so many reasons not to have a volunteer fire department and saving money is the only reason to have a volunteer fire department.
How many calls did the University Fire Department respond to last year? It seems to me they should be included in your analysis of call totals if other cities with more fire stations are responding to University calls within their city limits. So if you included the University Fire Department and said within the Davis area there are four fire stations with 4 fire engines and 1 ladder engine and they responded to a combined total ????amount of calls and then compared that to those other cities. How does that change the data. I suppose you should include the amount of students and staff on the campus too. That might show a more accurate comparison to those other cities.
As for responding one car with a firefighter to a smell of smoke, what would that firefighter do if they found a house on fire when they arrived? Sure they could call for a fire engine to respond or they could put the fire out with the engine they responded on if they would have just came on a fire engine in the first place. I could see the blog or headline now, Davis Fire Department Only Responds a Car to a House Fire!
Why is the Vanguard not looking into the City of Davis as a whole and looking at the amount of money spent on parks, streets, water, sewage and special programs? How does Davis compare to other cities when it comes to those services? How many unique services and programs does the City of Davis spend money on as compared to other cities it’s size?Why are you always analyzing the fire department? A large portion of your research goes into the fire department and not other city departments. Why? Did the fire department do something to you? What is it? If you are trying to save the citizens money and make them aware of their city government, then do so by looking into the whole city not just one area of the city. You could start at the top and work your way down. Maybe also look into the tax base compared to other cities? Just some ideas for you to research.
“Why is the Vanguard not looking into the City of Davis as a whole and looking at the amount of money spent on parks, streets, water, sewage and special programs?”
What evidence do you have the Vanguard hasn’t looked into the entire city? Certainly both the story on the 100K of Davis and the follow up looked at the entire city. Of course, the findings we all know show that Fire leads the way.
This story, like the 100K story, of course originated not with the Vanguard, but with the Enterprise. Does the Enterprise have a vendetta against the fire department too?
And let’s see before that the focus was on the Grand Jury Report both it’s release last summer and it’s investigation. I suppose the Grand Jury and Bob Aaronson also have vendetta’s against the fire department.
Seems to me that the Vanguard is merely responding to what is going on in the political arena of Davis in this regard.
As Rich Rifkin points out–part of the problem here is that the fire department is the only department from which employees contributed in 2008 to council races, now why is that?
The fire department wants to know why the Vanguard is looking into them? However, the Vanguard not look into them?
These are unions that are bankrupting our city.
Every year lots of university students are recruited to do wilderness firefighting in California and the west. I know it’s not completely the same as urban firefighting, but would that training contribute to the kind of training needed for volunteer firefighters?
Madame Shoes’ comment illustrates the depths of my frustration with this problem. I’m a union guy. I’ve worked for a union and been a member of a union, same with my wife, my parents were union people, etc. Unions like the fire fighters are going to destroy the union movement in this country. And they are going to destroy and bankrupt the public employee retirement system.
Most public employees do not make a whole lot of money and many could make a lot more in the private sector. But they have job security and retirement benefits that outweigh that factor.
The fire fighters make an average of $140,000 in total compensation last year. Some make nearly $200,000 in total compensation. Who is going to pay for that? Not just the tax payers who have to flip the bill but the average state worker whose salary is less than half of what fire fighters make.
And yet all unions are lumped in together. The whole system is going to implode because of the weight of the top. Things like 3% at 50 and 2.5% at 55 are going to kill for those who will be lucky to get their 1.7 or 2 percent at the normal retirement age.
Yeah I have a problem with that. I don’t see the plight of people making $140,000 in total compensation the same as those people who make $10 per hour, or have to take public assistance despite working full time. I just don’t.
But to many of these people on here, they see no difference between the firefighters and the teachers. Yeah I’ve been pressing the teachers to take a paycut in lieu of layoffs, but most of these teachers make a fraction of what the ff’s get. They have to pay out of their own salaries for their health benefits, sometimes substantially. It’s not the same.
So if you want to know why it is I have a beef, it’s all of this.
David, I appreciate you reporting what you try to report on but it has become clear to me what you are doing by your defensive reply. I was asking if you had. I didn’t think you had looked into the city as a whole and was wondering if I was mistaken and if you were going to look into the city as a whole. I guess you are not trying to report on items that help the City of Davis as a whole, you report on items that the “Vanguard is merely responding to what is going on in the political arena of Davis”. By your statement alone, you are playing politics with the Firefighter’s Association. Not to get personal, but did your wife go to the Firefighter’s Association for their support during her run for city council? Did she get support from them?
I don’t think the $100K club has anything to do with fire department staffing levels or firefighters/calls of service per capita. I don’t think Bob A. or the Grand Jury have a vendetta against the fire department. Bob was asked to do an investigation and write a report which he did a good job. The grand jury caused that investigation, much of the allegations we reported as unfounded. Let’s go back to a pervious blog and ask the question again. How much total compensation does the Vanguard think is fair and livable in the City of Davis?
The city budget seems to be the “political arena” right now and I was wondering how much does the City of Davis spend as a whole for it’s services. I’m not looking at just fire, just parks, just public works but as a whole. Would you be willing to look into that and report back to us? Also, look into how much tax is charged in the City of Davis and where the taxes come from. I didn’t mean to offend you but I’m looking to you to report the bigger picture. Maybe I’m wrong for doing that.
So is the Davis Enterprise also playing politics with the Fire Fighters Association? Weren’t they the ones who covered the 100K Club first this month? Are they too defensive?
[b]”How many FIRES do they actually respond to?”[/b]
LowSo: the stats are all on the city’s website under the fire department. In 2008, they responded to 35 structure fires, and many more other kinds of fires, many of which were outside the city limits. The DFD is responsible for the City of Davis, the surrounding county area, and is part of a larger mutual-aid grouping.
[b]”Replace the whole bunch with volunteers and make some serious savings. There is no reason we couldn’t do this.[/b]
Perhaps it is simply due to my ignorance and inexperience with them, but [i]I don’t think it makes sense to have a volunteer fire department in Davis[/i] or to rely on unpaid volunteers to augment our professional firefighters in normal conditions. If a dry rye field catches fire on the edge of town, I wouldn’t want to rely on accountants and grocery clerks to save the people and houses in its wake. (If, per chance, there was a holocaust in Davis and volunteers were needed in emergency bucket brigades or some such thing, of course that would be a good idea.)
Fighting fires is extremely dangerous, even in Davis. It takes a huge amount of training to understand how to attack fires and how to safely use the equipment. On top of that, all of our professional firefighters are trained as EMTs, and are in cases of serious accidents, heart attacks and so on, a vital link in saving lives. Moreover, they are experts in dealing with hazardous material spills. I don’t see what is wrong with paying highly trained, highly skilled professionals to do this job.
Saying we need them, and appreciate them, does not mean we need to overpay them; nor does it excuse the reproachfl politcal activities of their union. We can afford a highly skilled, professional fire department in Davis, staffed appropriately. What we can’t afford (in the long run) is the overly generous salary, benefit and pension program they now receive, including an inordinate amount of city-paid overtime. In other words, we need reform on the edges. At its core, we have the fire department we need, rely on and appreciate.
[b]”Why do they need two trucks with flashing lights every time a kid falls off his bike?”[/b]
I think this is a very good question. One of the reforms the city manager and the fire chief should be considering is a more discriminatory response to 9-1-1 medical calls. It’s not just that the firefighters are unneeded at many of these calls and might be putting themselves out of position to respond to the next call; it’s that there is good (anecdotal) evidence that some people are loathe to call 9-1-1 in a medical emergency, because they don’t want an ambulance and two entire fire trucks showing up on their cul-de-sac at 3 am, every time they have chest pains. I’ve received about a half dozen emails from people telling me this. I was also told — and passed it onto the chief — that there were secondary problems caused at the URC by the regular presence of fire trucks showing up to help out with seemingly minor medical calls. To my knowledge, the DFD adjusted its practice there, so they no longer block the entrance, as my emailer told me they had done for some time.
The fire trucks also respond on a regular basis (daily?) to Atria Covell Gardens on Alvarado. The usual route is up F Street, left on Covell, right on Catalina, then left on Alvarado, then zoom down Alvarado with sirens blaring. Using the parallel residential street helps them avoid the traffic and lights on Covell Blvd, I’m guessing. I’m almost certain that there is rarely, if ever, a fire, but rather it is a medical call that the two trucks are responding to. I also wonder why 4-8 fire fighters need to respond to the medical calls each time.
Earlier today I was cleaning up the dog poop in my yard , and it got me thinking of the Davis Vanguard. The opinions of the blog administrator and Rich Rifkin today are basically producing dog poop, or in other words bullshit .
You latch on to any misquote or inaccurate fact , or pull it out of your rear end .
Your lame ability to only produce vengeful stories of one city department , as you can see by earlier posts , a lot of people are tired of your same old fire department dribble .
say something without reference to some bodily function and I might take your opinion seriously. Until then, I’ll stick with the Vanguard.
Spank: Do you have a life? Do you have the maturity of a five year old? Who are you shilling for?
Another important note, those calls per population are somewhat distorted because in the other college towns, the fire department provides fire service to the universities.
FYI – roughly one third of the Palo Alto Fire budget (perhaps police also) is paid by Stanford.
In Davis
The City and the University work independently which certanly increases the overall cost.
The primary medical provider is AMR rather than fire so Davis gets no insurance money to help support fire. Instead AMR takes that money and Davis residents are burdened with subsidizing the rest of the county.
I like the idea rationalizing manpower on trucks, but there is more to do. Retiree pension/medical deals must be reformed for all public employees. I understand the reasons for the focus on fire, but from a budget perspective the focus needs to be expanded.
Human lives are valued and yes, expensive. It is better to be prepared and have an appropriate team available when life saving intervention is needed. Firefighters put their lives on the line everyday to save the lives of others, not too many people do this. They should be compensated appropriately.
GOOGLE ‘Volunteer fire department’ or ‘volunteer fire department association’ to see the diversity of cities that excellent fire service at a fraction of the cost that we do. I grew up in a town about 60% the size of Davis that had excellent fire service from people that had a stake in their community and an interest in service. Volunteer fire departments are also a lot of fun for both the volunteers and the community. They foster community. If there are doubters or cautious council persons, a volunteer fire department might grow from a partially volunteer department…let’s say one or two full time firefighters and one or two volunteers on the vehicle. We need to start somewhere.
If we are to grow the Davis dream, we have to be creative, rather than just doing what we always have done. There are some risks…yes, but they are probably not significant. If we are prudent in our restructuring, and willing to try new ideas (that are proven elsewhere) we can realize other community goals…like funding our schools and teachers…like providing for homeless persons…like developing no fee downtown parking structures…like rerstoring hours at our library, etc.
Let’s think outside the box.
Several times it was mentioned that the “law” requires so much training to become a firefighter or volunteer firefighter….. can that law be cited? What is the code? Is it a B&P or a H&S?
“So if you want to know why it is I have a beef, it’s all of this.”
I tend to agree w your analysis, altho I deplore three aspects of unions:
1) Intimidation tactics they will use against any who don’t agree w them, a la Bobby Weist and the FireFighters Union as an example;
2) Certain union bigwigs skimming money from workers, such as Bobby Weist, and the nonsense about union activity hours, etc.
3) Some unions are just not getting the job done of getting decent wages for their employees, such as the tech workers at UCD.
Unions are not necessarily a panecea either, but then I think you realize that too.
Oops, forgot to change my pseudonym from More Public Comment and less from CC!
I always see the DFD with lights flashing, siren blaring and driving like a bat outta you know where to or at three main spots in town- 1. The nursing home on Pole line Road north of 5th St, 2. The nursing home at 1111 Alvarado Avenue and 3. the HUGE nursing home on Shasta Drive. Hmmmm….does anyone else see a connection too? I say move the stations into or next to these three top places! It will save money, gas, and the obnoxious noise of these rigs flying down city streets. Also can someone please teach them to park better?