There is a perception by some that the Contra Costa Fire District is operating under an outdated service model. The Con Fire board of directors and even the consultant they hired acknowledge that our fire calls have not changed much over the years.
Yes, we are responding to more medical emergencies than we are fires. But our core mission is unchanged and the number of fire responses each year is not declining.
This is why firefighters have many concerns about the operational plan and potential deployment strategies to be proposed in the upcoming Fitch Associates study. A preliminary plan was unveiled last month.
Fitch is using incomplete data to support a faulty premise: that emergency calls follow a predictable pattern and the impact to services can be minimized by capturing inefficiencies in the system.
The “location” and “time of day” graphics mapping our calls in the Fitch presentations are incomplete. Obviously, every call is not the same. The study does not reflect the complexity of the calls, including how many were dispatched, the duration of the call, how many people needed aid, how many concurrent calls came in and which calls were for automatic aid.
For instance, the recent Morgan Fire on Mount Diablo, which included more than 1,000 firefighters from multiple jurisdictions and took six days to contain, would show up as one dot on the map at 1:50 p.m. on a Sunday. Data is useless if it does not offer context.
National standards recommend that 15 firefighters and one supervisor be able to arrive on scene within eight minutes to a standard residential fire. With our current staffing, this requires five fire stations to be emptied because we have three firefighters assigned to each station. This is known as a first alarm. Each additional alarm requires the same resources. A two-alarm structure fire in the middle of the night will have a significant impact on the number of resources that would be available for any additional emergencies.
Additional closed stations, as proposed in the Fitch presentations, have the potential to increase response times, and the increased risks are measurable. The projected two-minute delayed response time after closing more fire stations seems reasonable. However, the measurement for delay in response time is flawed. This two-minute delay assumes all of our engines/trucks are sitting somewhere strategic at the same time. That is unlikely. When an engine/truck responds to an incident, it leaves significant geographical gaps in coverage and results in a longer than two-minute delay in response time.
A final study should also look at “norms” around the Bay Area and around the country. The study should compare our personnel, resources, costs and performance against other fire departments and districts that serve a large suburban area that has similar dynamics, including an unpredictable wildfire season and large open space and major oil refineries and other industrial businesses.
The study should also include a baseline demand requirement that specifies the necessary personnel and resources needed for a fire district of this size and complexity. And, it should document the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of any new model for deployment.
Firefighters continue to work with the board to address declining revenue and the need to ensure the public’s safety, including a pilot study at Fire Station 1 in Walnut Creek to run a medical squad for lower priority medical calls, which will help keep fire engines available for higher priority calls
However, a fire district of this size and complexity should not be a test lab for unproven and potentially dangerous deployment strategies proposed by Fitch. The public deserves to know the truth about what these proposed models really mean to their fire service.
Vince Wells is president of the United Professional Firefighters of Contra Costa County, Local 1230
7 comments
“Data is useless if it does not offer context.”
Amen.
The biggest problem with the Fitch study approach is it trying to take static model analysis and apply it to a dynamic world.
Doesn’t work.
The low information types will dig through the report and look for suggested cost savings. All logical and critical thinking on their part will cease at that point.
Speakin of low information types.. Cue the anti fire department comments from the likes of John Gonzales-Knightsen, Don Flint-Disco bay & Mark Doran-Disco bay in 3 -2 – 1
I agree with Vince Well’s and Jigsup’s comments. Emergencies’ no matter which type don’t adhere to any predictable scheduling. This report is nothing but a waste of good money. After doing research and I am not convinced that Fitch co. has the qualifications for a study of a large suburban firedepartment like Con fire. They must have been the low bidder and we all know you get what you pay for.
I agree Tim that the report is another waste of money just like the union. Lets cut the union and pay the firefighters with the savings. My big brother told me that unions take too much of the members money. We need good well paid firefighters and less micromanagement from Vince and those union thugs.
You really shouldn’t have cut all those classes to go out and get stoned.
How does an adult get through life with such an obvious lack of simple math skills?
Uhhhhhh ECV’s Brother,
I think you missed my point. I never said the union was the problem. I can see that you have some personal issues with the union and lack of understanding of purpose versus personnel. The firefighters and the union are one in the same. They are hardly what I would consider thugs. I’m curious why you would want me or anyone else to think of them that way. Do you honestly believe you could “cut” out a union? Please tell me how that works? Do you believe you are paying the firefighters union and therefore would realize some sort of a cost savings? I would be interested in reading your answers.
Your post indicates you have no understanding of the subject or how modern day unions function. It comes off as more of a hit piece on your part. You must be one of the “low information” people Hefe and Jigs warned us about. If not, then provide some realistic commentary that makes sense.
@ Tim,
Don’t waste your time with the ECV’s. ( ECVBrother “Johnny Gone brainless” or EECV “Donny crybaby Flunk )
Both of the mental midgets have multiple reading and common sense challenges. ( You really don’t have to point it out—They both do a perfectly fine job of pointing it out themselves ) Can you say social rejects????
ECV’s brothers last post was nothing short of a trip to crazytown.
Comments are closed.