In today’s column in the Davis Enterprise, Rich Rifkin calls on the city of Davis to end its practice, that began back in 1999, of having four firefighters on an engine.
He writes, “In the late 1990s, unlike most other cities in our region, the Davis City Council, influenced by union cash, increased fire staffing by one-third. Where we had three people assigned to each fire truck before, Davis has since had four.”
“We cannot afford this excess,” he argues. “Based on numbers provided to me last week by city staff, the marginal expense of that additional firefighter on each truck in the 2011-12 fiscal year was $1.48 million. For the 2012-13 fiscal year the cost will be another $1.57 million. In five years it will be $1.94 million.”
The stunning part of those numbers is how much they have grown since the council first implemented four-person fire engines in 1999 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. Which means at that time, total compensation for a firefighter was about $60,000 a year and that figure “included the costs for turnouts, beds and lockers for the new firefighters.”
This is an important number to be illustrative, because the road to fiscal unsustainability is paved with small and incremental moves. The next decade would see us create enhanced retirement benefits of 3% at 50, skyrocketing retiree health care costs, and huge increases in salary and total compensation.
As Mr. Rifkin reports, “The 45 sworn Fire Department employees – one firefighter I, 34 firefighter IIs, seven captains and three division chiefs – cost the taxpayers of Davis $7.94 million in total compensation. That’s an average greater than $176,000.”
He adds, “The 35 firefighters ranged from $150,242 to $182,262. The total compensation for the department’s 10 officers ranged from $197,101 to $220,738.”
Even at that time however, council was alarmed by what they must have seen was an unfunded mandate from the state and federal governments. Julie Partansky moved and Stan Forbes seconded a motion that directed the city manager, John Meyer, to prepare a letter to then Assemblywoman Helen Thomson “regarding the additional expense faced by cities to meet these newly established safety regulations…”
The motion would pass unanimously signaling that, even at that time and at that cost, the council recognized the huge impact of the increased fire staffing.
The staffing increase came as a response to the 1998 Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s rules known as “Respiratory Protection 29, CFR 1910.134.” These rules were then adopted by California’s OSHA as respiratory protection amendments to Title 8.
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.”
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.”
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. 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.
Remarkably, we have asked for data on the number of entries into buildings in situations that would require the OSHA requirements be implemented and have never gotten such data.
However, the chief back in 2009 analyzed the data and found that there were ten instances where the city would have been out of compliance with the new OSHA standard. And while that number may have risen since then – even though the percentage of fire calls is quite low still – it is striking that we are spending $1.5 million annually to address situations that may arise a couple of handful of times each year.
As Rich Rifkin noted in his column today, every city faced the same dilemma and yet most of them either took a different approach than Davis or have since changed their policies due to fiscal restraints.
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 numbers 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.”
With 20/20 hindsight, the problem is not necessarily that the city went to the additional firefighters, it is that they failed to adequately monitor the costs associated with the recommendation. The six firefighters have turned into, it appears, nine and the costs have soared from $368,000 – which would be quite manageable – to $1.5 million and increasing with time.
“From a purely monetary standpoint, laying off nine firefighters is the way to go,” Mr. Rifkin writes. “I would hope that when we go back to three-person crews – there is no doubt we will – the council will consider the human cost of laying people off. With serious reforms in all the labor contracts, Davis still can avoid bankruptcy.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Going back to three firefighter crews is so obviously the responsible thing to do what’s taking the City so long to implement? Thanks Rifkin and David for bringing this to the forefront.
Trimming staff is going on everywhere and this should not be off the table, but the FFers are organized and it will require a very brave politician to bring this forward.
Ryan: Correct.
“Trimming staff is going on everywhere and this should not be off the table, but the FFers are organized and it will require a very brave politician to bring this forward.”
They weren’t forced to take the job, they wanted it and ran for it. It’s now time they do their job.
Have you researched whether it’s an OSHA regulation that must be met or an NFPA standard recommendation? The two in and two out can be met by the multiple trucks that respond anyway. Many cities in the US are going back to three man trucks as a realistic cost saving measure. Some fire departments (Kansas City, MO for example) are forcing the unions to make other cuts if they want to keep four man trucks. Modern firefighting needs to change as the built environment has changed. Especially with auto mutual aid that ensures more than enough firefighting capability in the city of Davis.
New Davisite: My understanding is that police officers can be trained to be the 4th member for the rare times that they need it. THe officer helps outside with the 3rd FF, and two of them go in the building. But why doesn’t the FF Union write a piece for the DV explaining their position, and why legal and public policy rules require the City to maintain the current situation? Now, that would be a good, interesting, fair and honest public debate. We have never had it. The FF’s response to my merely suggesting we look at it was to bring crowds of FFs to City COuncil meetings and sit there.
David G, nice article with solid history in it. This helps the public understand the problem, and suggests solutions.
I want a public discussion of: what are the alternatives to meeting the OSHA 2-in, 2-out rule? David, since the FF sure is not going to do it, maybe you could contact 6 of those other cities and find out how they meet the OSHA?
I don’t think that taking one of our 4 on-duty police officer (I believe that is the number of officers we have on patrol at any one time) and divert them to fight a house fire would be OK. They have more than enough to do. This is not a solution.
“I don’t think that taking one of our 4 on-duty police officer (I believe that is the number of officers we have on patrol at any one time) and divert them to fight a house fire would be OK.”
I disagree Ryan. First of all, at a fire police are often the first to arrive. Second, they would be in a support position as the fourth until the next company arrives. You are talking about diverting a police officer for less than five minutes maybe ten times a year. That doesn’t seem like a big diversion and it would save the city $1.5 million.
How many fires does Davis have in a year that would require a policeman to show up and act as the fourth? Other cities have been able to work with three under the new OSHA rules, why not us?
Rusty: That’s the number I have been trying to get for some time now. Apparently back in 1998 it was 10. Even if it is 20 or 30 now, does that justify full time staff at that level?
The City Council really cannot directly lay off fire fighters and direct the police department to provide support to satisfy OSHA rules. I think the only thing they can do is to cut the Fire Department’s budget and the City Manager and the Fire Chief would have to then lay off people to meet that budget. If using a policeman is their solution to meet OSHA requirements, then the Police Chief would have to agree that he will provide one officer, if there were multiple fires and two trucks could not respond together. I believe that it is typical that two trucks are responding to calls currently. As for cutting the budget, it gets complicated when there are union negotiations involved.
David quotes:
> “The 45 sworn Fire Department employees – one
> firefighter I, 34 firefighter IIs, seven captains
> and three division chiefs – cost the taxpayers of
> Davis $7.94 million in total compensation. That’s
> an average greater than $176,000.”
Some of my best friends really are firefighters (I’m not just saying that and they don’t work for the Davis FD).
Recently my wife told me that my firefighter friend bought his wife a Lexus SUV that she said was “paid for with his overtime earnings this year.”
When my wife asked if I had any idea what he made per year we went to:
http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/
and saw that last year he made over $50K in OT (he made more this year) and had a TCOE last year of over $325K.
The husband of another of my wife’s friends is a pediatrician and after 4 years of college, a masters degree, three years of med school, an internship and residincy makes less per year that all my firefighter friends that went to junior college for two years.
I think it would be great if everyone made $175K a year, but I don’t think that it is fair to tax the people of Davis (most of who make much less than $175K) so we can pay our firefighters that much (when there are thousands of qualified people who would do the job for less).
“The City Council really cannot directly lay off fire fighters and direct the police department to provide support to satisfy OSHA rules. I think the only thing they can do is to cut the Fire Department’s budget and the City Manager and the Fire Chief would have to then lay off people to meet that budget.”
I disagree. They can set the policy of three per engine and lay off firefighters. However, that would be a change of work condition and therefore subject to the CBA.
SouthofDavis
“I think it would be great if everyone made $175K a year, but I don’t think that it is fair to tax the people of Davis (most of who make much less than $175K) so we can pay our firefighters that much (when there are thousands of qualified people who would do the job for less).”
Well said and dead on. You would think these guys are hard to find. I’m sure we can find many to do the same job for let’s say $75,000/yr.
[i]”… that would be a change of work condition and therefore subject to the CBA.”[/i]
As you know from my column, my suggestion is that we should not lay off any firefighters, but rather we should change their scheduling, so each is on-duty 3/4ths as much as now. I did not say so in this column, but the idea is that over time, there will be staff attrition (mostly due to retirements) and eventually we will have the minimum number needed to employ 3-per-truck on a full time basis.
As to the contract … it does discuss scheduling and hours of work and so on. For that reason, I do think the MOU with Local 3494 will have to be amended in order to put my place in plan.
Of course, as with any provision of any of the city’s labor agreements, the council has the right, as long as it follows state and city labor law, to unilaterally change the contracts and unilaterally impose its terms, once the contracts have expired and the two sides have met but have not agreed to new terms. My expectation is that this is exactly what will happen with the next fire contract. The union will never go along with a reduction in hours or any form of 3-per-truck scheduling.
MICHAEL: [i]”I want a public discussion of: what are the alternatives to meeting the OSHA 2-in, 2-out rule? David, since the FF sure is not going to do it, maybe you could contact 6 of those other cities and find out how they meet the OSHA?”[/i]
Keep this in mind: the OSHA rule only matters when there is a structure fire and when, in order to ensure public safety, the firefighters on scene must make entry into the burning building. This is a rare occurrence in Davis and rare in all of our comp cities. As you know, more than 95% of what our firefighters do when on calls is assist with medical emergencies. The fire crews are often the first units to arrive at heart attacks and so on. They help the patient until the ambulance arrives and its crew can take over.
That said, we do occassionally have structure fires in Davis where our firefighters need to make entry. The OSHA rule does apply in those cases. Although I do not have any hard numbers for this, my anecdotal evidence — told to me by a current Davis police officer and confirmed by a retired Davis firefighter — is that the DFD always sends multiple trucks to respond to one of these situations. As such, it’s not the case that they send one truck with four men. They send 8 or more men to a structure fire which requires entry.
When the first four-man crew arrives, one person (almost always the captain or the acting captain) will stay outside the building and will be in charge of the others. One firefighter will stay with and assist him and do things like set up equipment, fight the fire from outside, etc. Two firefighters under the direction of the captain will act as a team and go inside.
The cities in our region which use three-man crews in these situations do essentially the same thing. They send multiple trucks to the scene. One person and one assistant will be in charge on the outside. Two people will make entry.
I don’t know how many cities use police officers to act in firefighter capacities. From my observation, the cops who are sent to fires–I saw one in my neighborhood a few months ago–seem to be in charge of controlling auto traffic and yelling at onlookers, “Get the eff out of here you dumbf*ck!”
I know that in some small cities–Marina is one–the police are the firefighters. They are trained to do both jobs.
I think David Greenwald’s idea could work well in Davis, if I understand it correctly. When the DFD sends a 3-person crew to a house fire and a police officer is sent there as well, the cop could be trained to assist the captain on-scene when the two firefighters make entry, if another fire truck has not yet arrived. Once a second fire truck gets to the fire, the police officer would go back to his normal routine of yelling at onlookers.
To be clear: cops would have to get a lot of training just to be the “assistant” outside with the incident commander. I am not suggesting all he would ever do would be to set up equipment, hoses, and so on. The two outside firefighters are there in case the inside two have a crisis and they need to be rescued by the outside two. So the cop would have to be ready and able to do that in a very rare circumstance.
Ultimately, this comes down to a question of resources: We only have so much money to pay personnel and to provide public services and to maintain our infrastructure. We have long been neglecting our infrastructure. That is not a responsible or reasonable approach. So if not a return to 4-person crews, what alternative method do you propose to save $1.3 to $1.5 million per year, which we need to fix the streets?
SOUTH: [i]”I think it would be great if everyone made $175K a year, but …” [/i]
RUSTY: [i]”I’m sure we can find many to do the same job for let’s say $75,000/yr.”[/i]
Keep in mind that the larger figures are for total compensation, not just base salary.
Here is a breakdown from 2011-12 figures for one of our FF2s, not the highest paid*.
$92,780.19 – BASE SALARY
$19,238.63 – OVERTIME
$24,424.47 – PERS (EMPLOYER) PENSION
$18,838.79 – CAFETERIA BENEFIT USED
$862.94 – CASH-OUT AMT
$99.60 – LIFE INSURANCE
$195.50 – LONG TERM DISABILITY
$3,392.00 – WORKERS COMP
$25.22 – SURVIVOR BENEFIT
$1,668.32 – MEDICARE
N/A – SOCIAL SECURITY
$2,180.00 – UNIFORM
$0.00 – UNION HOURS
[u]$18,556.04 – RETIREE MEDICAL[/U]
$182,261.70 – TOTAL COMP
And for what it is worth, here are the same numbers for one of our fire captains, who was in 2011-12 the second lowest paid of the 7 current captains:
$114,856.56 – BASE SALARY
$2,904.68 – OVERTIME
$30,586.68 – PERS (EMPLOYER) PENSION
$11,578.41 – CAFETERIA BENEFIT USED
$5,961.60 – CASH-OUT AMT
$99.60 – LIFE INSURANCE
$195.50 – LONG TERM DISABILITY
$3,392.00 – WORKERS COMP
$25.22 – SURVIVOR BENEFIT
$0.00 – MEDICARE**
N/A – SOCIAL SECURITY
$2,180.00 – UNIFORM
$1,811.93 – UNION HOURS
[u]$22,971.31 – RETIREE MEDICAL[/U]
$197,100.49 – TOTAL COMP
—————–
*Note: the disctinction between an FF1 and an FF2 is the FF2 makes more money. He has to prove over time on the job that he has acquired more skill and experience. Eventually, every person hired as an FF1 makes it to FF2. Today, we have only one FF1. All the other firefighters (34) are FF2s.
**There are 3 firefighters and 4 captains who do not get Medicare. I am not sure why this is. It likely is the case that they are all veteran employees who date back to a time when it was not required or contractually obligated. All others, however, are covered under Medicare.
Rich, if you ever run for CC, the FFs will let you know how much they love you, like they did to me 11 years ago. But for their tactics, they have had 11 years of pure gravy. Must be nice to make $175K with 2 yrs of college?
OK, so the CC is meeting in closed session to try for a new contract with the FFs. Does anyone know the status?
I think the public has a right to know about this process before the CC comes out of closed session with a done deal, and puts it on consent. Rich, David, anyone have contacts who will tell you, and you can write it up?
[i]”OK, so the CC is meeting in closed session to try for a new contract with the FFs. Does anyone know the status?”[/i]
I do not know what happens in closed session. Here is something I am reliably told: That this sort of meeting is between our top staff, the city council members and the professional negotiator. At some point in the past in closed session the CC communicated to the negotiator the terms they wanted in each new contract, including the fire MOU. In any follow up meeting the negotiator is telling the council members and top staff what has happened in negotiating sessions with the reps from each bargaining group. … In other words, I don’t know what is being said.
[i]”I think the public has a right to know about this process before the CC comes out of closed session with a done deal, and puts it on consent. Rich, David, anyone have contacts who will tell you, and you can write it up?”[/i]
No member of the council has ever before given any closed session information or gossip to me. I have, however, heard some things in the past from unelecteds, but nothing this round.
Here are the 2011 call stats for the fire department:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/firestats.jpg[/img]
Related to their $182,261.70 total compensation, we also need to add the value of their paid time off. That is 14.5 paid holidays and 12 paid sick leave days and average 18 days of paid vacation per year. These are for 11.2 hour work days. If we take the total duty hours of 2,912 per year to determine the hourly rate ($182,261.70 / 2912 = $62.59 per hour in total compensation. 44.5 days of total paid time off is 498.40 total hours of paid time off. The dollar value/cost is another $31,194.86.
Including paid time off brings our FF2 total compensation to $213,456.56.
Including paid time off in the total compensation calculation is standard for job valuation in the private sector.
Also, keep in mind that a firefighter works 9 24-hour “tours” per 27-day work cycle. That means he/she gets 18 full days off per every 27 days… not including paid time off. So, assuming this employee takes their holidays and uses all of their vacation, and all their sick days, they would work 77 total days per year (121.5 duty days less 44.5 paid time off days) out of 365.
And we wonder why we are running out money to pay our teachers…
Jeff wrote:
> Related to their $182,261.70 total compensation,
> we also need to add the value of their paid time off.
> If we take the total duty hours of 2,912 per year
> to determine the hourly rate ($182,261.70 / 2912 =
> $62.59 per hour in total compensation. 44.5 days
> of total paid time off is 498.40 total hours of
> paid time off. The dollar value/cost is another
> $31,194.86.
The Unions like paid time off since it is not “paid” until later and often at a higher rate then when it was earned (most union contracts pay it at the current pay rate when the person retires).
I did a Google search since I remember reading that former SF Police Chief Alex Fagan got an “unused vacation” buyout when he retired many times greater than the total net worth of the average American family.
I couldn’t find the number for Fagan, but I did find that former SF Police Chief Fong and another cop cashed in $303K and $325K of vacation at retirement:
http://66.35.240.8/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/07/BAD91HJ22F.DTL
As far as firefighters go I don’t understand why someone that only works 9 or 10 days a month (12 to 13 with a lot of overtime)needs so much paid vacation (isn’t 20 days off a month enough)?
They also cash out unused sick leave when they retire.
Thank JFK for ignoring the principles of FDR and every other President before who demanded that public employees NOT be allowed to unionize.
Almost exactly 50 years ago Kennedy signed Executive Order 10988 — a gift to George Meany, the AFL-CIO head who helped Kennedy win the White House — which allowed most federal workers to bargain collectively for the first time.
Man are we paying for that gift.
[i]”When the first four-man crew arrives, one person (almost always the captain or the acting captain) will stay outside the building and will be in charge of the others. One firefighter will stay with and assist him and do things like set up equipment, fight the fire from outside, etc. Two firefighters under the direction of the captain will act as a team and go inside.”[/i]
David Greenwald has a very interesting document, which I imagine he will address soon enough in a column, which explains that what I wrote above is wrong. The part I have wrong is where I say that when a truck with a four person crew arrives on scene, those four can, without any other assistance, make a 2-in, 2-out entry of a structure fire and in doing so follow all of the legal requirements. They actually would be violating the national safety standards if they did that. They need a 5th person on scene in order for 2 people to enter the burning structure. The first captain on scene, who would be the incident commander, cannot act as one of the “2-out,” according to the document David Greenwald has.
The importance of this revelation is this: That even with four-man crews, they need to get two trucks on scene. Or, with 3-person crews, they need two trucks on scene. As such, the 4th person on each truck serves no real purpose, other than to cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
For details and a full explanation of the safety regulations, wait for David’s report.
Mike H: did you own your property before or after the ‘FIRE SALE” offering? I seem to recall that the property you own on D Street was the scene of a tragic fire that claimed the life of a young woman…. am I incorrect? I’m thinking 1987… might be off a year or so, one way or the
other. That property is “kitty-corner” from FS # 1. I expect you will ignore this post, Mike H…
hpierce: The founder of the company I manage purchased that lot to build our office. Mike is my neighbor. I think he might have had an interest in the lot at one point. He certainly influenced the final design of our building. We did not offer any input to his office building design. I understand that the girl died going back into the house to save her pet bird. That is why we have a stained glass panel above the front door with an image of a bird. It was our attempt to honor the girl in a small way.
Jeff: Thanks for the clarification.
Jeff: Once I met the FF who found that dead girl. He was still upset years later. I admire FFs a lot. I’ve worked with them for years due to plane crashes. They are the ones who save those people or retrieve bodies. Years ago that Boeing 727 midair over San Diego and killed everyone and people on the ground I was on tour of the SD Historic Fire Museum and I asks about the plane strut on the wall. The docent told us he was on that scene, then he broken down sobbing, at least ten yrs after the horror. My NTSB investigator friends all leave with PTSD from what hey see. And they have to talk to the survivors. FAA controllers who screw up and kill people often medically leave; taken those depositions over the years.
Yes, I hugely appreciate the FFs and police who deal with the aftermath of our high speed transit modes.
My fight with the local FF is only about wasting tax dollars. It was my job for the voters and I did it
Jeff: people always ask me who owns that beautiful large house next to my office. You do have a gorgeous office building!
Mike: Thanks for the complement on the building. It does look like a nice house. I agree with you appreciating firefighters. Same with the police. Their over compensation is not their fault. I know many and talk to them about it and everyone understands that they are beneficiaries of an unsustainable gravy train. They know it will end one day. Even so, it is difficult for anyone to accept reductions. Once a person gets used to a certain lifestyle and has set their work expectations to a certain compensation level, it feels very bad going backwards. But backwards we must go. It is asinine for us to waste a single day more than we have to. We need a reset and we need it yesterday. A FF2 should be a $65-75k/year job with benefit costs no more than about another 35-40% of that. We need to go to 3-person engine companies. People will still line up around the block to apply for openings after making these changes. Who wouldn’t want to work 9 days a month and get paid for sleeping?
Jeff… thank you for the clarification. I was incorrect.
I’m a bit late to this party but i wanted to again state a few quick facts about DFD and UCDFD and their shared structure fire response.
A first alarm structure fire in the City brings the entire Davis Fire Department (3 4 man engines plus a rescue company that may have from 1 to three additional personell if no others called in sick or vacation time) Minimum staffing is 12 max is 15. its usually closer to 12. Also Included is UCDFD’s Truck company with 3 or 4 full time firefighters and up to 3 or 4 student FFs if available (7 seats total) and the duty chief officer from either UCDFD or DFD depending on the rotation.
If a DFD engine is comitted on another incident UCDFD’s Engine company is dispatched as well with 3 career FFs and up to 2 student FFs (5 seats total)
A Second alarm would bring the above UCDFD engine along with units from Woodland, West Sacramento, or Dixon depending on the region of the city.
Just wanted to make it clear DFD is not handling the incident alone.
Here are some interesting comparison statistics from 2008.
[u]Firefighters Per 1,000 People[/u]
Palo Alto 1.66
West Sacramento 1.34
Sacramento 1.11
Berkeley 1.09
Folsom .92
Roseville .88
San Luis Obispo .87
Woodland .86
Chico .76
Vacaville .74
Napa .69
[b]Davis .68[/b]
Fairfield .52
[u]People Per Fire Station[/u]
Vacaville 24,226
[b]Davis 21,938[/b]
Sacramento 20,684
Napa 19,277
Woodland 18,622
Folsom 18,148
Fairfield 17,792
Berkeley 15,242
Chico 14,492
Roseville 13,644
San Luis Obispo 11,174
West Sacramento 9,414
Palo Alto 7,921
[u]Number of Fire Stations[/u]
Sacramento 23
Roseville 9
Palo Alto 8
Berkeley 7
Chico 7
Fairfield 6
West Sacramento 5
Napa 5
Vacaville 4
San Luis Obispo 4
Woodland 3
[b]Davis 3[/b]
[u]Budgeted Expenditures Per Capita Fy08/09[/u]
Palo Alto $382.85
West Sacramento $294.12
Berkeley $278.41
San Luis Opispo $257.07
Roseville $223.44
Folsom $220.24
Sacramento $205.67
Vacaville $185.64
Woodland $168.94
Chico $162.79
Napa $155.29
[b]Davis $148.65[/b]
Fairfield $139.52
Funny that you post those stats, when I originally discovered the stats presented above, it was in response to those very selective stats.
If you look at stations and population it looks like Davis spends little and is underserved. If you look at service calls, you get a very different figure.
link ([url]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9pR-0mkLeic/SaP9YqVSEGI/AAAAAAAAFd4/LRmgDxuN2Qg/s1600-h/Fire+Costs+per+call.jpg[/url])
Cost per call: Davis fourth highest at $2279.56
Service Calls: Davis lowest a 3956.8
Calls per 1000: Davis lowest a 63.1
Calls per Station: middle at 1318.9
Calls per firefighter: fourth lowest at 88.3
David wrote:
> Funny that you post those stats, when I originally
> discovered the stats presented above, it was in
> response to those very selective stats.
The stats were selected for a reason, but I think that it is important to ask where the stats came from?
Years ago a friend owned a condo in Saratoga next door to the fire station. When people asked if the noise bothered him he would say that “we don’t have a lot of fires in Saratoga”.
I remember Ray telling me that he saw something that listed the number of “calls” his station had and it was so many times higher than he expected that he guessed they must be counting “calls” to ask when the date of the next pancake breakfast is…
P.S. I bet the reported number of fire calls at most stations is about as accurate as the reported number of sexual assults on the UCD campus was when Jennifer Beeman was doing the reports…
Those stats were reported in a staff report I think in 2009. At the time, the finance director suggested to me that there were other stats that told a very different story. The stats presented at that time were supposed to justify current staffing and salaries. The key is that Davis has a lower level of calls for service than other communities and therefore doesn’t have the need for the same level of fire service.