The Vanguard reported in March that the UC Davis-City of Davis Fire Merger was being paused, and some officials believe it is, in fact, dead. The Vanguard obtained a January 12, 2012 letter through a Public Records Act request from UC Davis Vice Chancellor John Meyer.
Contained in that letter was another kernel that the Vanguard has followed up on with another public records request.
One of the huge culprits was what Vice Chancellor Meyer called a “significant compensation disparity.”
“I am deeply concerned about the significant compensation disparity highlighted in the CityGate report,” he writes. “The report suggests that UC Davis will increase its compensation in support of consolidation efforts. I believe such action would not be sustainable by UC Davis and should not be assumed in future planning.”
While the Vice Chancellor references the CityGate report, that report, due out last summer, has not been made available to the public.
The Vanguard has now obtained the report from the city through a Public Records Act request. The report has implications for the now-failed merger, as well as the ability of the city to move from a four-person engine to a three-person engine.
Those who believe the merger would have saved the city and UC Davis significant money might want to examine the CityGate report, which argues that the ideal model is five stations rather than four, with five engines, 1 ladder truck and 18 total firefighters per day – the current staffing level.
That would enable the city to re-staff the engines from 4 to 3. Move a new station into western Davis and relocate the current station 32 to north central Davis.
They argue at a minimum they would need one fire chief, a fire prevention officer, a training officer, three shift-based Battalion Chiefs and two office support staff.
However, the savings from such an arrangement would be much more fleeting that you might originally think. CityGate projects just an $80,000 savings from this arrangement.
In fact, at current city compensation rates, the city would pay the exact same amount and UC Davis would pay up to $257,000 more for the merger.
Nevertheless, they conclude there are moderate to significant pay and benefit differences, but both partners could ultimately save while improving services and effectiveness.
Unfortunately, we have been led to believe that the prospects for merger are dead.
The implications of this study are staggering, however, as they undermine the ability of the city to save money by moving from a four-person engine to a three-person engine.
According to the city’s finance Director Paul Navazio, the study was authorized concurrently with the approval of the Fire Management Services Agreement with UC Davis back in July 2010.
Following a lengthy RFP process, UC Davis finalized the contract with CityGate in July 2011.
He told the Vanguard, “The total cost for this Phase 1 Feasibility Study was ‘not-to-exceed’ $49,794. This cost was shared equally across four partner-agencies (Davis, UCD, Woodland and West Sacramento), with each contributing $12,500.”
Mr. Navazio cautions that the focus of the study was to evaluate the feasibility for consolidation of fire services across jurisdictions, rather than simply being a study of Davis Fire operations.
This explains why the report analyzes staffing and the reduction of fire engines to three without analyzing the overall costs or the city’s budget and determining whether the current staffing is affordable or sustainable.
Importantly, “The study concluded that for geographic coverage reasons, merging all Yolo County fire agencies into one consolidated operation did not appear to make sense….from the perspective of West Sac and Woodland.”
However, he said, “It did conclude that there were advantages to exploring further consolidation of Davis and UC Davis operations.”
We asked Mr. Navazio the glaring question – how it is that the rest of the state manages to get by with three people on each engine?
He noted that CityGate has been consistent both in 2012 and 2009 that there is a distinction between the issue of engine company staffing and total shift staffing.
He writes, “Our understanding of Citygate’s position is that, while Davis could clearly operate – as do many other jurisdictions – with 3-person engine companies, the concern lies in going from 3 four-person engine companies to a model where we staff 3 three-person companies.”
The problem with going from 12 per shift to 9 per shift seems problematic. He argues, it would result “in an inadequate staffing level necessary to attack a structure fire – and further exacerbates our reliance on the availability of mutual aid partners for such incidents.”
He adds, “It should be noted that moving to a staffing model of 4 three-person engine companies does not necessarily require a fourth fire station, as there are many examples of two engine companies co-located within one station, even though they act and are dispatches as separate units.”
He further adds, “While it is absolutely true that a large number of jurisdictions operate three-person engine companies, very few – if any – staff fire services with less than the number of shift personnel needed to respond to a structure fire.”
By way of example he notes, “The City of Berkeley covers its 10-square miles with seven fire stations….West Sacramento deploys 3-person engine companies, with 5 fire stations; Woodland deploys 3-person engine companies, with 3 stations, but staffs four pieces of apparatus, including 3 engine companies and one ladder-truck….”
We also asked Mr. Navazio about the minimal savings gleaned by CityGate from consolidation.
“There are a number of consolidation scenarios, each with varying cost structures and, therefore, resulting in a range of savings across participating agencies,” he said.
He adds, “The Phase 1 Citygate assessment focused on savings from a consolidation of Headquarters staffing, resulting in modest savings (in part as a result of the fact that the City budget had already included initial savings from the shared-Chief model under the MSA (see #1, above).”
Furthermore, he suggests, “Alternative consolidation scenarios exist should the City and UC Davis pursue full operational consolidation. These scenarios include varying amounts of total line staffing, depending on the number and location of engine companies, ladder truck(s) and stations.”
In those scenarios, “Deployment models exist that would result in a reduction in the total number of combined fire staffing across both agencies, and could yield significant savings over a simple HQ consolidation model. “
Finally, the report mentions that two-thirds of the calls for service are medical, and lays out coverage for the city, based on the need for big fire coverage without examining the actual number of big fires.
Paul Navazio told the Vanguard, “The call volumes, types and pattern are helpful in assessing workload and ‘risk’ factors for fire and EMS services.” However, “Call volumes and types may not have a direct correlation to staffing levels since fire services – unlike most other services – represent a form of insurance, in that resources are allocated not simply based on actual real-time demands, but rather the level of resources needed to respond to events that COULD occur….fire protection service levels are often defined as how long would it take to assemble the required resources to address incidents where timely and effective response can mean the difference between a minor incident, major incident, or devastating disaster.”
Thus he writes, “The goal is to be able to respond quickly to minor incidents, so as to avoid them becoming major incidents – within a matter of minutes. As such, fire/EMS staffing levels are more appropriately determined by geographic area of coverage, travel times, and related risk factors (including proximity of mutual aid jurisdictions), rather than simply the number of calls for service.”
If this is the final word on fire staffing, the results are disappointing, as they suggest at least that we will not be able to achieve the $1 to $1.5 million in savings by shifting from four to three on an engine, and the reduction in staffing needs based on that reduction.
However, this may not be the final word. One of the problems with CityGate is that they are not neutral arbiters of fire staffing. Rather they are comprised, themselves, of retired fire chiefs, who some have argued have been singularly unable to think outside of their narrow box for reforming the way fire staffing is performed.
One possible unexplored approach would be separating the essential ambulance service that the fire department provides in around 70% of cases in Davis from the firefighting service.
Another approach would be to begin looking at ways to reinstate volunteers into the department. One expert told the Vanguard, if all of the paid fire departments in the State of California staffed their engine and truck companies with one reserve or volunteer firefighter, taxpayers would save about $ 1 billion per year statewide.
By utilizing fire reserves judiciously, many cities now teetering on insolvency would be able to reduce their General Fund expenditures to a level that is, once again, sustainable. But, as the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs wrote in their publication back in 1998, “paid firefighters have become addicted to overtime.”
That addiction, coupled with the fire union’s political power, has directly resulted in driving fire reserve and volunteer programs into extinction while contributing significantly to the demise of balanced municipal budgets.
Each position that is staffed with a volunteer or reserve (who performs as well as the career ones) saves local taxpayers about $150,000 per year. Thus, just ten reserves could save the city $1.5 million.
How workable would that be in Davis? The idea of a volunteer fire department has been scoffed at by professionals, but what about a more limited endeavor?
In tight times, we need to find ways to cut back on costs in ways that will not put public safety at risk.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote] One of the problems with CityGate is that they are not neutral arbiters of fire staffing. Rather they are comprised themselves of retired fire chiefs, who some have argued have been singularly unable to think outside of their narrow box for reforming the way fire staffing is performed.[/quote]
That sums it up right there. The foxes are guarding the henhouse.
We need a truly neutral evaluation of the fire department which weighs benefits and costs. I think it needs to address a number of issues:
1. If most of the fire dept response are for medical emergencies, is there a better and cheaper way to do this? Frankly sending out fire crews seems inefficient.
2. If we need extra capacity for insurance (for worst case scenario) what are the benefits and costs of carrying all this excess capacity? WE are spending millions–are we saving any lives? are we really saving money on property? (most f which is already insured anyway)
3. Can we reduce labor costs?
I, for one, am fed up with our fire dept. When I see them in town I don’t feel prode, I feel disgust, which I have to hide.
2.
Why wasn’t the CityGate–what a great name, considering…–report provided to the city council with a staff report the week in came sliding under the city manager’s door? Seems as though it would have been on the agenda promptly, given the public interest and the contractor’s tardiness.
Why would we hire CityGate again when we knew what “position” they held from the 2009 report? Just paying again to find out if they’d be “consistent”?
Interesting that Meyer and Navaro get different pictures from the same report. Wouldn’t it have been helpful for the city council and staff to have chatted with UCD reps before the university made and announced its decision? Did the council even know that the report finally had been delivered?
I hope that the city council doesn’t think that they shouldn’t evaluate the three-person engine issue just because CityGate turned out the stand that some expected them to.
Another excellent story you’ve worked up here, David, doggedly using public records legislation to expose things our city government shouldn’t be keeping secret from its citizenry.
I grew up in the Washington, D.C. area, with an all volunteer fire department assigned to our area. When I married and moved to the Baltimore, MD area, the fire department also had some volunteer firefighters. We did just fine w volunteer firefighters. I am not necessarily advocating that as a possibility or answer here, but the idea of having some volunteer firefighters has some surface appeal.
Bottom line, I don’t see how the city can economically sustain the fire department as is – something has to give – either:
1) compensation/benefits have to be reduced;
2) and/or a reduction in workforce;
3) and/or replace some of the workforce w volunteers;
4) and/or other solutions.
I would be interested in hearing what the Fire Dept. has to say. It might be in the best interests of the City Council to let the Fire Dept. know that some sort of reduced costs has to be forthcoming, perhaps even set a ceiling as to costs, then let the Fire Dept. figure out how it can live within the city’s means…
Elaine, this ts the same fire department that bought our city council to get us in the unsustainable place we are with them, that drove four- person fire trucks across town to buy food at Nugget just to boycott the market a short walk across the street and lives everywhere other than in the town that finances their overly expensive career choices. Among other offenses. Just because they can with impunity.
You really think they care about Davis’ financial situation as long as they get theirs…and a portion of somebody else’s? Now, they’re got the expected support from CityGate. The union already would have signaled interest if they had anything to offer or, even, if they were slightly anxious about something being forced upon them. Riding’ high and loving’ it!
To JustSaying: I think you missed my point. What I am saying is that the City Council can give the Fire Dept a BUDGET within which they must live, like it or not. Then let the Fire Dept figure out how to handle the BUDGET CEILING – be it agree to lower salaries; let some firefighters go; or whatever other solution they can come up with. And see what the Fire Dept comes up with for proposed costs savings. Why not give them the opportunity? The problem I have is so often I watch the City Council (no indictment of the current City Council) try and micromanage from the dais all sorts of issues they know nothing about. It is an almost impossible task, and so often results in poor planning and no real savings. Does that make more sense to you?
[quote]I grew up in the Washington, D.C. area, with an all volunteer fire department assigned to our area. When I married and moved to the Baltimore, MD area, the fire department also had some volunteer firefighters. We did just fine w volunteer firefighters. I am not necessarily advocating that as a possibility or answer here, but the idea of having some volunteer firefighters has some surface appeal. [/quote]
Mayor Krovoza has also suggested some volunteer workers. I think its something to seriously consider for several reasons:
1. If the purpose of having all this excess capacity is in case of dire emergencies, some volunteer firefighters could be trained to come out only in these cases.
2. It might change the dept culture which JustSaying has rightly said has been self-centered.
Got you, Elaine. I agree that the council would be hard pressed to manage the fire department. Who does, anyway? One would hope whoever supervises the fire chief has been asking the department to do the exercises you suggest on at least an annual basis.
The complication I foresee is that the budget problem seems to be driven by personnel costs. I’m sure the firefighters could come up with union-approved proposals that are unacceptable because they propose cutting something that’s critical or cuts that don’t save but a pittance. Will they figure out how to operate with fewer on each shift or on each engine, or with less overtime, or with less costly individual benefits, or even save a few bucks by not driving a fully staffed truck across town to avoid a food run at a store that advertises here?
Our fire fighters have displayed a level of arrogant selfishness that doesn’t bode well in the search for big savings. We’re been in budget trouble for sometime. Any examples of them stepping up?
I like the idea of using at least some volunteers in the department operation. Or, even some lower paid staff to deal with chores now handled by the expensive folks. Need I mention food runs, again?
Do our small town needs make a volunteer department a real consideration? It seems we could hire a contractor to evaluate the potential, not CityGate, however.
All this talk about volunteers. Volunteers are exactly that….volunteers….they work for free, they may show up or may not. The east coast is much different than the west coast when it comes to fire departments. There are many volunteer departments on the east coast. They generally respond to only fires and provide extrication (jaws of life) at some vehicle accidents. They don’t provide emergency medical services, instead there are paid ambulance companies that provide EMS (many more than we have here). The Davis Fire Department is an “all risk department”, meaning they are always ready respond to emergencies such as medical emergencies, children locked in cars, hazardous materials, incapacitated citizens, vehicle accidents, bicycle accidents, fire alarms, downed power lines, grass fires, natural gas leaks, people locked in elevators, natural disasters, help neighboring fire departments, train accidents/derailments, floods and yes the occasional structure fire. All this, any time, 24/7…and yes they need to eat so a trip to the store may be necessary. Do you want to depend on volunteers for your emergency? Whatever emergency a citizen has, chances are the fire department can help.
Lots of towns supplement their fire depts with volunteers. Great idea.
The fire station is equipped with living room, dining area and kitchen.
Yet the men and their big trucks are constantly at the Nugget and around
town buying lunch to go. The fuel cost is huge for these luncheon excursions.
Late this morning, 10:50, a giant fire truck and a big rescue vehicle drove through the 5th Street post office parking lot and stopped at the drive-thru drop-off collection box. This was surely personal business at great cost for fuel. I’ve never lived in a town in which firemen
used our fire rigs for personal excursions.
Volunteer firefighters are HIGHLY trained. Some towns use them exclusively, no problem.
When Davis firefighters came to my house for a
medical emergency, it would have been a lot cheaper to have volunteers.
It was the ambulance crew which handled the medical part, firefighters only moved the ill person off the bed.
I was astonished at the amount of damage the firemen did, minor tho it was, bumping into things, breaking things, without even acknowledging they had done so, or apologizing. Volunteers might be less full of themselves.
[quote]Volunteer firefighters are HIGHLY trained. Some towns use them exclusively, no problem. [/quote]
Precisely…
[quote]All this talk about volunteers. Volunteers are exactly that….volunteers….they work for free, they may show up or may not. The east coast is much different than the west coast when it comes to fire departments. There are many volunteer departments on the east coast. They generally respond to only fires and provide extrication (jaws of life) at some vehicle accidents. They don’t provide emergency medical services, instead there are paid ambulance companies that provide EMS (many more than we have here). The Davis Fire Department is an “all risk department”, meaning they are always ready respond to emergencies such as medical emergencies, children locked in cars, hazardous materials, incapacitated citizens, vehicle accidents, bicycle accidents, fire alarms, downed power lines, grass fires, natural gas leaks, people locked in elevators, natural disasters, help neighboring fire departments, train accidents/derailments, floods and yes the occasional structure fire. All this, any time, 24/7…and yes they need to eat so a trip to the store may be necessary. Do you want to depend on volunteers for your emergency? Whatever emergency a citizen has, chances are the fire department can help.[/quote]
I’m not following you here. Volunteers show up, or why else volunteer? They certainly showed up religiously in our neck of the woods (East Coast). Paid ambulance services arrive at medical emergencies here too. What makes you think that fire depts back East that are staffed with some volunteers don’t respond to all sorts of emergencies, just as they do out here?
See [url]http://www.grahamcounty.org/grahamcounty_departments_emergency.html[/url]
[quote]FIRE DEPARTMENTS
Graham County has two Fire Districts. Chief Keith Eller heads the Graham County Fire Department. There are three stations. Station One is in Robbinsville. Robbinsville’s Chief is Jeff Millsaps. Other officers are Assistant Chief, Rex Smith and Lieutenant Jeremy Odom. This station serves the six-mile district around Robbinsville including the town of Robbinsville and Lake Santeetlah. The station has two pumper/tankers, and a brush truck. Station Two is located at Snowbird. Snowbird’s Chief is Hugh Atwell. Other officers are Assistant Chief Wendall Waldroup and Captain Billy Lewis. This station serves the six miles around the snowbird station. This station has three pumpers, one tanker, one brush truck, and a equipment truck. Station Three is located at Pine Ridge. Pine Ridge’s Chief is Jerry Collins. The other officer is Assistant Chief Rex Waldroup. This station serves the six miles around Pine Ridge including the Town of Santeetlah. This station has, two tanker-pumpers.
Stecoah Fire Department serves the five miles in and around Stecoah and responds from Fontana to the Swain County line. Stecoah’s Fire Chief is Lynn Cody. Other officers include: Tom Smith Deputy Chief; Clifford Williams Assistant Fire and Rescue Commander; Kyle Williams, Captain Fire and Rescue; William Myers, Training Officer; Alan Sampson, Lieutenant; Joyce Cody, Treasurer; Pam Williams, Secretary; and Randy Jenkins, Traffic Officer. Stecoah has a pumper, a tanker, a brush truck, an equipment truck, a mobile command post and an two ambulances.
All the Fire Departments in Graham County are operated entirely by volunteers. These volunteers must keep a minimum of thirty-six hours of annual training, but most maintain much more. Not only do they volunteer to fight fires, they also volunteer to raise money needed to operate the department.[/quote]
See [url]http://pgcfd.tripod.com/[/url]
[quote]Today you can still count on the volunteer firefighters of the Plympton & Gilbert’s Cove Volunteer Fire Department to answer the call when help is needed.
Although we are primarily a “fire department” we offer other services to our community such as flooded basement pumping (in emergency situations only, not a regular service), medical first response, and various community and public service activities such as fire prevention, fire station and apparatus tours, assisting numerous community organizations with their events such as traffic control, parking assistance, parades and other social events. Some of our firefighters are also members of the Digby Ground Search & Rescue team, and respond to search and rescue calls when needed.[/quote]
See [url]http://www.palmertwp.com/emergency_services/fire.htm[/url]
[quote]Palmer Municipal Fire Department makes 429 emergency calls
The all volunteer fire department responded to 429 emergency calls in 2002 accounting for 3970 hours of operation. They also logged 1938 hours of training. This highly trained group of firefighters are always ready to come to the aide of those in emergency need. All of the residents of Palmer should be very thankful that there are committed and dedicated individuals to take on this responsibility. The Board of Supervisors are very proud of the high quality fire department we have in the township.[/quote]
See [url]http://www.dbvfd.com/[/url]
[quote]Welcome to the Dallas Bay Volunteer Fire Department web site. This site is designed to provide you with information about the department, fire prevention activities, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, ISO rating, and our kid’s corner. We welcome all e-mailed comments or questions. Thanks for visiting!
The Department serves about 28,000 people, and over 9000 homes, businesses, churches and schools in a 30 square mile service territory in the areas of Hixson, Soddy-Daisy, Lakesite, Middle Valley, Hidden Harbor, Ramsgate, Stonewall Farms, Dallas Bay and Falling Water. The Department provides emergency protection and services from the Chattanooga City limit on the south, to Sequoyah Access Road on the north, east to the Tennessee River and west to the Soddy-Daisy City Limit. The Department also has one of two regional fire/rescue boats that are responsible for responding in Homeland Security District 3 in Tennessee which includes Hamilton and 9 surrounding counties.
The Department has 60+ trained fire and medical volunteers on call at all times that respond to from three stations located in the district. Except for the Chief, none of the members or staff of the department is paid, and none receive an allowance for routine expenses. Members use their own vehicles at their expense to respond to the stations, answer calls and participate in training and other department activities such as Station and vehicle/equipment maintenance.
• In 2011, your Department spent over 5,840 man-hours responding to 1716 both emergency and non emergency calls – a record number for the Department.
• 1226 calls were for first responder emergency medical services
• 140 calls were for various types of fires.
• 350 calls were for a variety of other situations, both emergency and non-emergency, e.g. citizen assists, wires down, spills, gas leaks, water rescues, and automatic fire alarms.
• The average response time for all calls in our service area was 4 minutes and 23 seconds, a 12 second improvement from last year.[/quote]
So it seems for many communities around the country, all volunteer or partially volunteer fire depts work quite well as a model…
I certainly think it is something for the city to consider…
There are West Coast volunteer departments, some with small paid staffs to lead and train, that do much more than fight fires. Many Oregon and Washington communities rely on volunteer “full service” fire departments. Granted that dedicated, paid firefighters probable have the edge. Bit, what if we no longer can pay as many of them because their union has convinced us to pay each individual way too much? And retire them too early with too much. And on questionable disabilities.
[quote]“Members (volunteer fire fighters) use their own vehicles at their expense to respond to the stations, answer calls and participate in training and other department activities such as Station and vehicle/equipment maintenance.”[/quote]Maybe we could beg our well-paid firefighters to buy their lunches and food supplies using their own vehicles, instead of fully-staffed trucks? If we reimbursed them mileage? If we tossed in a month of retirement credit for each Nugget run. Oh, never mind, it gets too complicated.
We are heading to using volunteers for much of our public services out of financial need. It is inevitable, the only question is when.
The root problem as I see it is the Public Employee Unions. They have grown in knowledge and capacity manipulating our representative government which, by design, is staffed by temporary public servants. The unions have achieved their goals of acquiring everything they can for their members and then protect it at all costs. Every closed school program, every unfilled pothole, every long wait for city services… they all point back to the Public Employee Unions.
[quote]The root problem as I see it is the Public Employee Unions. They have grown in knowledge and capacity manipulating our representative government which, by design, is staffed by temporary public servants.[/quote]This statement may be true for teachers. I honestly don’t know. Saying that, none of the non-safety City of Davis employees are represented by anyone other than themselves, and such legal counsel they may need in order to offset the City’s legal counsel.
E Musser- between the City of Davis and UC Davis there are about 6000 calls per year (16/day) for service from the the two departments. How many volunteers would it take to assist, 24/7, with that call volume? Most volunteers have jobs, families, etc. Can they really consistently “drop” what they are doing and respond to an emergency? A volunteer would need to respond to the station in their own car (obeying the vehicle code), then get in a fire engine and then respond the the emergency. How is that going to be better? If you were having the worst day of your life how would feel about help taking at least three times as long to get to you? Then there is the training and the turnover. Volunteers need to be trained to similar levels as paid firefighters- in some cases more so because they don’t do it all the time. In addition to responding to calls a volunteer would need to spend at least 8-10 hours per month training and keeping current on mandated skills. Again taking them away from their job, family, etc. A fair amount of volunteers decide that it’s too big of a commitment and quit.Then the process starts over again. This is the reason volunteer department can work well for small populations, rural areas, low call volumes and smaller scopes of practice (no EMS).
Many cities faced with budget issues have found ways to make their fire departments less expensive and more streamlined. Consolidation (merger) helps immensely. Using data to staff stations appropriately. Training dispatchers to a higher level so only the resources that are necessary will be sent to an emergency. Casualties, however, can slip through the cracks. As it is now the fire department is always ready to handle the biggest emergency. Streamlining and volunteers take some of that away.
You all seem to think “volunteers” will be the city’s savior. I suppose you all will be first in line to go through the training full time for three months or more (for free) needed to be ‘highly trained.’ The reality is that it is largely cost prohibitive for a normal person with a full time job to sacrifice that much time when he could be working.
You are on the right track though. A paid reserve program -such as UC Davis’s Student Firefighter program- would provide the needed forth seat firefighter while keeping costs down and providing a part time job and solid work experience for the hundreds of fully trained firefighter candidates being turned out by California’s junior college system each semester. Reserve firefighters are career oriented and though the turnover will be pretty regular you know you’ll be getting a professional, motivated candidate.
a small disclaimer – I’m an alum of UCD’s SRFF program and work as a reserve firefighter and paramedic for two fire districts and volunteer for a third where I live. The end goal is a full time job but you’ve got to start somewhere.
“How many volunteers would it take to assist, 24/7, with that call volume? Most volunteers have jobs, families, etc. Can they really consistently “drop” what they are doing and respond to an emergency? “
Two things. I spoke to a couple of the last volunteers who were apparently there until the last chief effectively ended the program through disuse, they do have families and jobs, but they are also people who do a lot of things in the community and would be willing to drop everything in an emergency.
Second, you miss part of the point, the point is that you don’t need volunteers for every call for service. Most calls, you wouldn’t need them. Some calls you would need quite a few, they be there in a back up and assisting role to supplement the power of attack in a large scale situation.
NVN8V: I don’t necessarily think volunteers are a savior, but as you suggest, I think we need a different way to meet the staffing needs rather than having someone on the clock that most of the time we don’t need.
[quote]realitycheck: Many cities faced with budget issues have found ways to make their fire departments less expensive and more streamlined. Consolidation (merger) helps immensely. Using data to staff stations appropriately. Training dispatchers to a higher level so only the resources that are necessary will be sent to an emergency. Casualties, however, can slip through the cracks. As it is now the fire department is always ready to handle the biggest emergency. Streamlining and volunteers take some of that away.
nvn8v: You all seem to think “volunteers” will be the city’s savior. I suppose you all will be first in line to go through the training full time for three months or more (for free) needed to be ‘highly trained.’ The reality is that it is largely cost prohibitive for a normal person with a full time job to sacrifice that much time when he could be working.
You are on the right track though. A paid reserve program -such as UC Davis’s Student Firefighter program- would provide the needed forth seat firefighter while keeping costs down and providing a part time job and solid work experience for the hundreds of fully trained firefighter candidates being turned out by California’s junior college system each semester. Reserve firefighters are career oriented and though the turnover will be pretty regular you know you’ll be getting a professional, motivated candidate. [/quote]
What I am saying is that volunteerism (such as nvn8v is suggesting) is something to consider. Bottom line is that the city needs to start thinking outside the box, as does the Fire Dept. Ultimately the city cannot afford to keep on the unsustainable financial track we are currently on. That is just the reality, like it or not…
Another idea would be a paid call program. Similar to volunteer but the employee receives compensation (say CA minimum wage @ 3 hr minimum) per response and for required training up to 1089 hrs a year (1/2 time).
The reason I favor compensation has more to do with accountability than anything else. It’s a heck of a lot easier to enforce accountability training, and professional standards on a part time employee than a volunteer. This accountability problem is the biggest issue i see in the fire districts i work for that use volunteers. Many are great, motivated, and professional. Others when asked to step it up play the “I’m a volunteer. what are you going to do? Fire me?” card. And though indeed the district could they don’t except in the most egregious circumstances because of the political implications.
BTW is there a chance you could provide a link to the whole report. I’d love to read it.
Sorry to triple post but I read a good article today that helps explain some of the challenges in starting up a volunteer organization better than I can: [url]http://firechief.com/leadership/ar/volunteer-firefighter-recruitment-changes-201203[/url]
I love the paid call program idea. I completely agree with nvn8v on this.
The state alread does hire part-time people to fight fires.
Another point, there are a lot of people on this blog advocating volunteering to help schools and to help with programs for the needy. Why not demonstrate similar civic pride helping the city handle its fire fighting needs?
Think about this though… what a great part-time job for smart and able-bodied college students. Pay them $10-$15 per hour without benefits to staff the forth position and maybe the third position too. They would be thankful for the job, and we would save hundreds of thousands of annual costs, and millions over the long-term. And don’t give me any crap about them not being as capable as the $150k per year firefighters. Check with the US military for the median age of the employees doing most of the heavy-lifting… it is the same as college students.