Beginning in November 2012, the city of Davis looked into ways to create potential opportunities for cost savings. After being presented an audit of the fire department operations by then-Interim Chief Scott Kenley, the city council over the course of the past year took actions to change required response times, enact boundary drop, reduce fire staffing, and finally, in November, implement a joint powers agreement for shared management service which brought Chief Trauernicht into the position of chief for both departments.
On December 18, 2012, the city council took its initial steps in dropping response boundaries between the city and UC Davis fire departments. A month later, on January 29, 2013, the city council directed staff to transition into utilizing all resources available to send the closest resource to all requests for fire and life safety services.
By the end of March, the city added Engine 34 to the initial first alarm structure fire response to calls within the city of Davis. In July, daily staffing was reduced from twelve per day to eleven and, finally in September, the city added Engine 34 to the second due response matrix, reducing response times to simultaneous calls and the need for move-ups of Engine 32 and Engine 33.
As the council implemented the shared management agreement, they sought a check in on the changes to fire department operations.
On January 1, UC Davis Fire Chief Nathan Trauernicht assumed a dual role as Fire Chief for the City of Davis. Under the shared management agreement, Chief Trauernicht provides oversight and management to both departments.
The city release states, “The agreement will maximize the use of existing resources, reduce duplication of effort and explore the potential for new efficiencies, while maintaining local control and high quality emergency services.”
Chief Trauernicht will report to the Davis City Manager on city matters and continue to report to UC Davis leadership on university matters.
Davis City Manager Steve Pinkerton said the move to share leadership of the two departments represented effective use of public dollars and a firm commitment to public safety. “Chief Trauernicht’s extensive background in the fire service and innovation in the delivery of emergency services will enable the city and university to benefit from unified leadership and shared resources that aim to better serve our community,” he said.
John Meyer, Vice Chancellor of Administrative and Resource Management at UC Davis said, “I have worked with Nathan for several years. Rarely in my career have I seen someone demonstrate such initiative and energy. He is extremely bright and engaging and focused on a positive future for the fire service. Personally, Nate provides me with great hope about the character of the next generation of leadership. He represents all that is good about public service.”
The city’s first report indicates that the boundary drop has largely worked as hoped. The outlying stations now remain in their respective first-in response districts for a greater amount of time. Staff reports, “Addition of Engine 34 on first alarm structure fire responses has resulted in providing an increased number of personnel on-scene sooner, in most cases, offsetting the reduction of staffing from four personnel to three personnel on each Davis engine.”
Overtime, which firefighters cited last fall as a serious concern, has been reduced to a manageable number relative to average shifts per member.
The chart below illustrates the city’s data analysis for how boundary drop has improved the fire service and response time.
The city analyzed staffing change effects. In changing staff, the city de-coupled Engine 31 from Rescue 31. The city argued that part of the purpose of this change was to create a fourth response unit which has allowed Rescue 31 to respond in tandem with outlying engines to traffic accidents, enabling Engine 31 to remain in its first-in area for a second response and respond in tandem with outlying engines to a second still alarm call in Engine 31’s first-in area, stopping the response time clock quicker.
The city reports, “Rescue 31 had a faster travel time by a low of twenty-four seconds to a high of five minutes and forty seconds.” They add, “On average, Rescue 31 had a faster travel time of two minutes and thirty seconds (2:30) over that of the responding closest engine.”
The fire audit reduced full-time positions from 42 to 36. This was accomplished by not filling vacant positions rather than laying off existing employees.
Staff writes, “At the time, minimum staffing was 12 per shift for a total of 36 positions; the additional six personnel, two per shift, were intended to offset time off and reduce overtime costs. Overtime costs the City 1.5 times the hourly rate of the employee. With benefits, an extra full-time Firefighter costs the City 1.9 times the hourly rate.”
Thus, “Eliminating the extra positions and covering time off with overtime resulted in a cost savings to the City of approximately 40% of the hourly rate, times six firefighters.”
“Between January 7, 2013 and July 7, 2013, minimum staffing per shift was twelve personnel with twelve personnel assigned per shift, requiring overtime for any vacancy created by sick leave, vacation leave and/or other vacancies (including strike teams,” according to the city report. “Beginning on July 8, 2013, minimum staffing per shift was reduced to eleven personnel with twelve personnel assigned per shift, resulting in no requirement for overtime to cover the first vacancy created by sick leave, vacation leave and/or other vacancies (including strike teams).
The chart shows the overtime data broken into two periods. The first period shows the overtime in the first part of the year before the staffing was reduced from 12 to 11 and the second part shows the overtime after the reduction of staffing.
At the September 10 city council meeting, the firefighters’ union president Bobby Weist complained, “You’re working these people to death,” complaining the staffing reductions had led to too much overtime work. Others came up to complain that because of the drop in staff, they could not take time off for their children’s birthdays and other family time.
But the data shows otherwise. Overtime staffing fell in the second part of last year following the implementation of staffing reductions. The total hours fell by 1000, and that statistic is understated since strike team hours, which are season-dependent and based on agreements with other jurisdictions increased by nearly 1000 hours. That means that the non-strike team overtime fell from 9737 hours to 7892 hours.
In the first part of the year, the typical employee had 11 overtime shifts that dropped to 9 in the second half of the year.
So far the data show that the response time has improved because it has eliminated what, for two decades, were essentially unnecessary move ups.
In the meantime, the city and university continue to move toward shared management. City Manager Steve Pinkerton and UC Davis Vice Chancellor John Meyer will jointly administer and manage policies and personnel issues for both agencies.
This includes development of an annual cost allocation plan, collaboration on appointments for positions, and collaboration to determine recommended personnel actions by each party.
Chief Trauernicht said, “These two departments have worked well together for decades and depend on one another for continuity of service delivery on a regular basis. We now have an opportunity to take that partnership to the next level in a way that benefits both communities. The entire shared management team is hopeful that this effort will result in a long-term model for success.”
The shared management agreement is in effect for twelve months – January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 and will automatically renew annually thereafter unless terminated by either party.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So three on a firetruck is working.
Are you reading this Sheila Allen, Dan Wolk and Luis Frerichs?
One of the interesting things is that the firefighters probably believe that if they can get rid of Pinkerton and get a majority on council, they can roll back the reforms. But rolling back the reforms would mean $600,000 to $800,000 in additional costs, that just isn’t going to happen in the near term.
Why is it not possible ? If we pass a sales tax increase and get the budget under control and the improving economy fills the city coffers we should look at restoring our fire staffing to the best possible level especially if we negotiate a contract where new hires aren’t getting the same unsustainable package as the existing FF’s. Playing around with public safety to save money is a game of Russian Roulette.
Toad, READ THE REPORT. Public safety has actually improved with the new system in place.
That’s the other critical point. What the city has done is better utilize existing resource and created a faster, more mobile, and more flexible system.
Doing more with less is contagious once you make it Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Next stop… our public school system.
Sure it has until it doesn’t and then it will be too late.
So you’re recommending we not use actual data to drive policy decisions? Instead, we should resort to fear of the unexpected?
“Sure it has until it doesn’t and then it will be too late.”
The city has to balance safety and manpower costs that works best for its citizenry. It looks like they have done just that, whether you Toad, Dan Wolk, Luis Frerichs or Sheila Allen like it or not.
We’re not going to be able to add that kind of cost at a time when we just passed (if it passes) new tax measure(s).
three on an engine saved the city about half a million. so the new council is going to turn around after asking the voters for two separate tax increases and give away half a million to firefighters? the vanguard would crucify them and rightly so.
Aren’t you overstating the influence of the Vanguard?
i don’t know, the city manager interrupted his day to put out a lengthy response to an op-ed printed here. so, perhaps it is you that understate it’s influence.
Depends on the issue. A vote of the citizens that requires 2/3 is different than a vote of the council that requires 60%.
Much of the safety concerns regarding the changes made in the collaborative project between UCD and the City of Davis firefighters seem to be being based on speculation rather than actual data.
1) There has been expressed concern about going from 4 to 3 on a truck. However, this seems to be based on a perception of only one potential scenario. The belief seems to be that there is great increased risk to property if the first responders cannot have the immediate advantage of “two in and two out”, however, when asked to do so, the firefighters produced no data or documentation to demonstrate that this model actually saves property and there is no argument about it saving more lives since it does not apply to an occupied building. So what we are actually dealing with is our city firefighters claiming that four is safer without any supporting evidence. In medicine, this would be the equivalent of me saying that it is always better to have more doctors at a code, when in reality what is needed is a limited code team each member of whom knows his or her exact role and has the skills set to perform it efficiently.
2) What also is not being taken into account is the type of service most needed by our community. What has been seen over time is a decreasing number of fires and an increase in the number or medical calls. This may mean that over time what is really needed is a leaner firefighting crew and one with more advanced medical skills
3) Other changing needs over time might include more community outreach from emergency personal to assess citizen well being before it reaches an emergency state such as the CARES model outlined on a previous thread. Or we might find that if and when the number of oil bearing tanker cars going through Davis increases, or if research and manufacturing partnerships with the university are successful, we might find that greater training and expertise in hazardous material management are more important to community safety than are traditionally trained firefighters. It may be that 4 on a truck is not our best and safest option going forward.
We simply will not know without being willing to look at the data and at changing conditions. What ever decisions our city council makes, I would urge them to make it on the basis of actual information, not just historical preference.
Taking the medical analogy one additional step, if a medical protocol used by physicians in most other nearby cities has not been shown to jeopardize the health of patients (refer to previously posted matrix for 3 verses 4 person fire staffing), why are Davis patients uniquely more at risk than anywhere else?
Phil, to torture the medical analogy one more level, the answer to your question is that some people approach their financial decisions about healthcare from a “normal care” perspective and others from a “catastrophic loss” perspective. If a person only sees fire staffing decisions from the perspective of “catastrophic loss” then no amount of money expenditures will offset their emotional connection to the risk of loss. Based on his comment above, Mr. Toad falls into that category.
On the other hand, if a person sees fire staffing decisions from the “normal operations” perspective they will be willing to incur the miniscule amount of risk that comes with the need to have a second engine arrive in order to fully comply with the “two in, two out” safety protocol.
Have you calculated those risks that you off handedly refer to as “minuscule?” I know I haven’t but I think over time somebody should and then perhaps revisit the cost/benefit analysis. Certainly even the most anti-union Vanguard writers don’t see anything wrong with a fair and transparent re-evaluation of the program perhaps annually to determine if what we are doing now is better or only cheaper.
No Toad, I haven’t personally calculated those risks; however, they should be able to actuarially be done. I agree with you 100% that fair and transparent re-evaluation of the program should be done. I would suspect that all the cities that were listed in the table David provided are currently conducting those annual/periodic re-evaluations.
The city I believe has already done that from a risk management basis in terms of property damage basis.
“…the miniscule amount of risk that comes with the need to have a second engine arrive in order to fully comply with the ‘two in, two out’ safety protocol.”
Please be a little more specific about the risk involved to “fully comply” with this protocol. I understood that firefighters would come in to save me even if only three had arrived and would fight property damage from outside (through windows, etc.) if necessary.
The water?