Last month the Davis City Council made a series of critical decisions on fire department response time and the boundary drop. However, when they delayed the discussion on reductions to fire staffing until what will be March 5 – election eve – due to the later hour, they gave the firefighters an opening that they are now, in one last-ditch effort, attempting to exploit.
The Vanguard obtained a flier that reads: “Did you know that the City Manager is proposing to reduce staffing/service level to the fire department?”
The flier attempts to scare citizens by suggesting that the reduction of staffing from 12 to 11 and shifting resources to allow three three-person fire engines and one two-person rescue apparatus would result in:
- Delayed entry into a burning building.
- Inefficient use of resources.
- Increase in the frequencies of no available resources.
- Increase in chances of bigger property loss.
- Increase in response time.
They write, “There’s no reduction in your fire safety tax ($32.50 per year), but there will be a huge reduction in the service level.”
They urge citizens to show up at the meeting on March 5 and write their councilmembers, asking them “not to cut staffing levels for the fire department.”
However, Interim Chief Scott Kenley spent a tremendous amount of time in his audit devising a plan that would not only save the city money, but provide the community with a strong level of service.
The firefighters are continuing to attempt to distort this issue. The following clarifies some of the issues that they are likely to raise.
Most Fire Stations in California Operate with Three on an Engine
Despite the OSHA regulations, most fire stations in California operate with three people on an engine – 90 to 95 percent of them, according to Interim Chief Scott Kenley. In his analysis, it shows that two in/two out would be a factor for a single three-person engine, perhaps twice a year.
Misconception About the Two In/Two Out Model
There is a lot of misconception about the two in/two out model.
OSHA itself described when the standard takes effect. In a 1998 publication, OSHA argues, “The ‘two-in, two-out’ requirement does not take effect until firefighters begin to perform interior structural firefighting.”
“Interior structural firefighting is firefighting to control or extinguish a fire in an advanced stage of burning inside a building,” they write. “Because the fire is producing large amounts of smoke, heat and toxic products of combustion, exposure of firefighters is extremely hazardous and is considered an ‘immediately dangerous to life or health’ (IDLH) environment.”
IDLH is defined by OSHA as “… an atmosphere that poses an immediate threat to life, would cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair an individual’s ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere.”
They write: “Only those situations where the acute exposure would threaten life, initiate an irreversible process that threatens life or health, or impede the ability of the worker to escape from the atmosphere would constitute IDLH conditions.”
Naturally, that description does not constitute every interior atmosphere. And OSHA differentiates IDLH from the incipient firefighting stage.
OSHA writes, “Incipient stage firefighting, on the other hand, involves the control or extinguishment of a fire in the initial or beginning stage, using portable fire extinguishers or small hose lines without the need for personal protective equipment.”
Because of this, firefighters do not have to stay outside of the building, necessarily. It may be that only the attic fire is an IDLH environment.
“Respiratory protection and ‘two-in, two-out’ are required in all interior structural firefighting situations. Interior structural fires are considered to be IDLH atmospheres,” OSHA writes. “However, the use of respiratory protection does not, by itself, invoke the requirements associated with an IDLH atmosphere. The use of a self- contained breathing apparatus could be unrelated to exposure to an IDLH atmosphere associated with an interior structural fire.”
Nor does the presence of visible smoke trigger IDLH.
In 2002, then-OSHA director of Enforcement Programs, Richard E. Fairfax wrote, “The presence of visible smoke itself does not trigger a requirement to wear any particular type of respirator. Fires that have not progressed beyond the incipient stage, such as stove grease fires, might be extinguished without the responders needing to wear any respiratory protection. Larger fires, which have progressed beyond the incipient stage, would require SCBAs for entry.”
Public Safety or Job Protection
The firefighters’ union, wishing to protect union jobs rather than necessarily promote safety, have attempted to transform this into a safety issue.
First, as even Rose Conroy in 1999 acknowledged, if an individual is in the structure, the standard does not apply. Firefighters may make immediate entry to effect a rescue.
Thus, Interim Chief Kenley argues that this becomes a matter of property value, not safety.
The firefighters’ union may counter that each extra minute they wait to attack a fire means the fire grows bigger and increases the risk to the firefighters once they are able to enter the building.
However, Interim Chief Kenley does not believe this is an insurmountable hurdle. While far from the ideal way to attack a fire, the firefighters can stick their hose through the window. This will push the fire into areas that it may cause more damage, but it will prevent the fire from growing.
This is actually a worst-case scenario. These scenarios only occur in Davis about twice a year. With the current proposal, it would only impact the outlying areas. The central fire station will have five firefighters on duty.
Boundary Drop Critical to Public Safety
Moreover, with the boundary drop and proximity of UC Davis, the risk here is further reduced.
In fact, Davis represents a relatively low risk for fires, overall. It is a primary reason we see so few fires to begin with. The city has high standards for construction, it is modern, and because most of the residences are relatively affluent, the upkeep on properties greatly reduces the risk.
The places with the greatest risk for fire are the older homes in the core, homes that will be served by the central fire station that will have five personnel immediately available.
The bottom line that residents need to understand is that what we are dealing with is not a public safety issue, but rather a property issue.
When the council meets this evening, they must weigh the risks of slightly more property damage, perhaps twice a year at the very most, given the other factors, against the costs of carrying an additional firefighter around the clock, year around.
In a city that does not have a huge fire risk, the costs are more for the city to carry that extra firefighter and those costs do not represent a public safety issue.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Our local firefighter’s Union using fear tactics is a surprise? That seems to be the way to go now, all they have to do is turn on their TV and see President Obama doing it everyday with his sequestration fear mongering. Maybe they leaned from him.
rusty49
So I am taking your comment to mean that the local firefighter’s were completely blameless before President
Obama was elected ?
Really? You erased my post. How many times are a Republican, Carl Rove, Fox News, etc. used in posts as comparisons? David had an article recently where he talked of Carl Rove tactics. Is only using a Democrat for comparisons against the rules on this site? How bout the off topic cartoon that was posted a few days ago that was allowed to stay? I seriously think you guys should be more fair in what you delete.
I played golf with a friend yesterday afternoon and we talked about the flyer David has attached above. He was working from his El Macero home yesterday morning when a firefighter (in uniform) rang the doorbell to give him a copy of the flyer and encourage him to attend the meeting at Pioneer Elementary and “E-mail all his city council members since the cuts in staffing will not save any money but endanger lives”…
My friend pointed out that the names on the list are not “his” city council members, but the firefighter seemed to have no idea that El Macero is outside the Davis city limits. He then asked about the $32.50 per year “fire safety tax” and wanted to know if it was part of the $250+ “E Davis Fire tax” that he pays, but again the guy had no idea. He left and said “If you care about your family we hope you can make it to the meeting at Pioneer next month)…
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) – the tool of all those lacking a factual and honest argument in the arena of politics.
UC President Mark Yudof to End His Tenure in August
[quote]
Don Shor
01/19/13 – 09:57 AM
…
I’m pretty sure Mitt Romney is available. Someone should give him a call.
[/quote]
From my standpoint, the Firefighters and the National Republican party have the same credibility in Davis.
The topic of this thread is the local firefighters union…
“The topic of this thread is the local firefighters union…”
Why hasn’t Adam Smith’s post been deleted?
Are we sure the fire fighter going door to door in uniform? The “uniform” for the union is very similar to the official uniform. Regardless, I wonder if someone can monitor the meeting to ensure that on-duty fire fighters do not attend this meeting and whether any fire fighter is released (meaning that we pay overtime for the person covering for the released person) for this political union activity.
What they are looking for are people in the community to start a “grass roots” campaign for them.
In uniform? Anyone know the rules about that?
I have no problem with a public employees union member working on his/her off-duty time to lobby the community for pay and benefits. I’m not sure about the in-uniform aspect of the visit; I would default to it’s wrong to use the uniform.
Also, just to be sure the process is fair, is the meeting a FF union “infomercial”, like Yes on I did when using the Senior Center for their “forum” intended to manipulate seniors without inviting both sides?
If an infomertial, then the FF should pay for the usual facility charge for the use of the public space at the school.
If it’s a balanced forum, and sponsored by a public agency, then the space should be free.
David: back in the days, I pretty much said from the dais what you said up in the article. The response was a bunch of FF sitting in CC chambers, with the union president trashing me.
I dont think you are going to have 35 FF sitting along your front curb at your home.
Times have changed, haven’t they?
Off topic comment from Mike trashing Yes on Measure I.
When combined with the boundary drop–which Local 3494 fought against for the same reason*–the staffing change, going from 4-4-4 at our 3 stations to 3-3-3 plus 2 more in the Rescue Truck, will greatly improve the response times, coverage and safety for the Davis public.
What I am unclear about at this point is exactly how the Rescue Truck will be stationed. If it is simply left full-time at the Central Station awaiting calls, our coverage and response times will not be as efficient as possbile. But if the Rescue Truck is moved around town as needed (the way the ambulances are), the efficiency will be far better than it is now.
For example, if there is a medical call in the neighborhood around Montgomery Ave. and Mace Blvd., dispatch should order the Rescue Truck to reposition itself to the area around the S. Davis Safeway. That way South Davis will have very fast response, in the case a second call (medical or fire) comes in while Engine 33 is attending to the Montgomery/Mace call.
This same sort of expanded coverage could make sense as a back-up for all 3 stations. If for example, Engine 31 is responding to a call at Wildhorse, Central Davis would need a back-up. And that could partly be the UCD fire crew and partly the Rescue Truck, which could be efficiently postioned.
I am sure the firefighter will, at first, hate having the Rescue Truck positioned the way an ambulance is moved around, because they are used to spending all day watching TV at the firehouse, when they are not shopping for groceries at stores which don’t advertise on this web site. But they will, in time, get used to the new routine. It is much better in all respects for the people of Davis. Sadly, it doesn’t save nearly as much money as we would have saved had we gone to a 3-3-3 arrangement.
In terms of fire fighting capacity, there is absolutely no argument that the 3-3-3 + 2 staffing model will endanger Davis residents. Just the opposite. Combined with the UCD crews able to now be first responders at a fire, the new set up will be much safer in case your house catches fire.
————————-
*Why is the union fighting this change? Money and power. They want the taxpayers of Davis to give them more money, which equates to power. They prefer an inefficient staffing regime, because they can then argue that we need a new station and we need to hire even more FFs to staff it.
Something just occurred to me which may be a good idea. There is an even better model of fire staffing that would improves coverage more and cost even less that Kenley’s 3-3-3 + 2 model.
Why not a 2-2-2 + 2 + 2 model?
What that means is have 2 FFs fixed at each of the 3 Davis stations with their fire engines. That would be 2 at Engine 31 (Central), 2 at Engine 32 (West) and 2 at Engine 33 (South)*. And then have 2 floating Rescue Trucks, which could be positioned around Davis as necessary. This would give us 6 points of departure for first response to a medical call–3 at the Davis firehouses; 1 from UCD; and 2 from the floating Rescue Trucks–plus whatever coverage we get from the AMR ambulance crews in Davis.
In terms of fighting fires, the closest engine company (of the four) would have to arrive on scene, and in order to fight the fire from inside the structure, that engine would have to be joined by 2 more personnel. With 2 floating Rescue Trucks, ready for business at all times, this set up would get the fire response up to 4 people much faster than the Kenley model would, because Davis would have much more widespread coverage, meaning it would be a shorter drive for the second unit to get on scene.
If I am again invited to the City’s fire roundtable, I will bring up this idea.
————–
*The UCD company, Engine 34, would figure its own staffing.