📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

El Dorado County Grand Jury 2010-2011 El Dorado Hills Fire Department Budget and Operational Review

Published: September 12, 2010 30 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 8 findings

The EDHFD salary and benefit package is significantly higher than other fire departments. The EDHFD is impacted by three entities: the Board of Directors, Fire Chief, and the EDH Professional Firefighters’ Union Local 3604. The Grand Jury learned from their interviews the Board wants to balance costs, but at the same time wants to maintain high wage and benefits to minimize loss of skilled personnel to other fire departments. The Union wants to maximize firefighter and citizen safety, as well as prevent layoffs, regardless of cost. This leaves the Fire Chief in the unenviable position of having to run a department on a collision course with fiscal reality, and who is responsible and accountable, but excluded from labor contract negotiations. Key budget categories for Fiscal Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are: Table 2: Key EDHFD Budget Components 2009‐10 2010‐11 Wages and Benefits 75% 84% Operations 8% 9% Contingency Funds 6% 1% Fixed Assets 6% 6% Capital Reserve 5% 0% The EDHFD budget contains many salary and benefit figures that seem out of sync with today’s struggling governmental agencies. The Department’s budget pressures have their origin in the 2005-06 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or labor contract. Cost of Living Allowances From July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2008, the following Cost of Living Allowances were awarded to EDHFD uniformed staff:  Effective July 1, 2006 4%  Effective July 1, 2007 4.5%  Effective July 1, 2008 5% Compounded, these raises total 14.11%. From July 2006 to July 2008, inflation rose 7.5%, so in effect the EDHFD firefighters netted a 6.61% raise over this three year period. However, there has been no Cost of Living adjustment for Firefighters since July 1, 2008. Salary Adjustments An additional equity salary adjustment of 1% for Engineers, and 2% for Firefighters was granted on September 26, 2006 by the Board of Directors. Another 0.5% equity salary adjustment was granted to Captains, Engineers, and Firefighters on July 1, 2007. With the equity adjustments added to the cost of living allowance, wages were boosted up to 16% from July 1, 2006 to July 1,

A Grand Jury survey of comparable fire departments revealed that the EDHFD pays higher salaries and benefits, but has lower service demands. The Grand Jury surveyed the following seven comparable Fire Departments to gain a reference to the EDHFD budgetary and staffing practices: El Dorado County Fire; El Dorado Hills, Rocklin, Lincoln, South Lake Tahoe, Sacramento Metropolitan, and Sacramento (See Table 4). The survey table reveals in most comparisons EDHFD pays much more in salaries and benefits, but has less service demand. The most striking comparisons are: EDHFD has the second highest staffing level, but  lowest annual alarms  lowest alarms per day per station  lowest percentage of calls that are medical in nature  lowest number of structure fires  lowest proportionate population Though the lowest in service demand, EDHFD is among the highest in the following categories:  Highest Firefighter, Engineer, and Captain pay  Numbers of staff assigned to an engine and truck  Total budget amount (proportionate)  Highest Overtime pay and proportionate budget  Educational Incentive pay and proportionate budget  Fire Officer and Chief Officer Pay  Second highest Chief, Deputy Chief and Battalion Chief pay  EDHFD is the only Department that offers 100% funded retirement, medical, and dental plans  EDHFD has a disproportionate number of Captains and Battalion Chiefs Areas that are similar to the other fire departments include:  Span of Control between ranks  EIP is incorporated in overtime calculations TABLE 4: RESULTS OF GRAND JURY SURVEY OF 8 COMPARABLE FIRE DEPARTMENTS EDC EDH Rocklin Lincoln SL Tahoe Sac Metro Folsom Sacto Total staff numbers by rank? 110 56 37 24 39 503 64 653 1 Chief 1 Chief 1 Chief 1 Chief 1 Chief $1 $1 1 Chief 2 Asst Ch. DpC / 1DvC 1 Fire Mar NA 3 Div Ch.5 AC / 1 DC / 1 FM Vacant 2 DpC, 5 AC 4 Bat Ch. Bat Ch. Bat Ch. Bat Ch. NA 15 6 (2Vacant) 11 Bat. Ch. Capt. Capt. Capt. Capt. Capt 136 15 105 NA 12 Eng. Pm 9 Eng. NA 9 Eng. 129 15 97 9 FF 288 FF, 144 44 FF 23 FF Pm 4 FF Pm 15 FF 17 FF 204 / 11 Insp. FF, 1 PM FFPm Population of your jursidiction? 77,000 40,000 56,019 41,111 25,819 640,000 64,394 525,000 Square miles of your jursitiction? 281 44 19.87 19.2 13 / 5 UW 417 21.74 148 Number of fire stations? Staffing per station? 15 / 7 4 / 4,4,4, 6 3 / 3,3,3-4 3 Stns, 3,3,0 4 Stn. / 4,4,5,0 41 Stns. 4, 3 to 7 24 Stns. Total alarms or responses for year? 7,565 1,815 3,309 3,066 2,949 75,525 5,600 70,000 Percentage of mecical calls? 75% 55% 67% 67% 68% 68% 77% 64% Average number of alarms p/station p/ day? .5 to 7 .8 to 1.7 3 3.7 3.15 ,1.94, 2.99 5.04 3.84 8.3 frames? 378 6 to 21 140 28 66 422 71 1,200 Annual property loss due to fires ? $2,252,786 $1,207,000 $2,746,106 $35,000 $282,771 $24,101,102 $610,000 $2,252,786 Number of fire staff assigned to an engine? 2 to 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 4 Number of fire staff assigned to a truck? NA 5 3 to 4 NA 2 4 4 4 Does your agency use floaters? Yes No Yes Reserves Yes No No Yes Span of control between Captains and engineers/FF? 1 to 4 1 to 2 or 3 1 to 2 1 to 2 or 3 1 to 3 No Answer 1:2-4 3 to 1 or 5 to 1 Base Salary Top Step FF $67,063 $79,996 $74,316 $66,426 $62,400 $79,044 $78,297 $65,072 Base Salary Top Step Engineer $69,189 $91,704 $82,560 N/A $68,652 $87,492 $86,127 $77,322 Base Salary Top Step Captain $83,691 $105,144 $94,368 $83,864 $78,936 $98,028 $94,739 $87,416 Base Salary Top Step Battalion Chief $108,264 A $129,648 $116,052 $112,902 N/A $119,316 $133,375 $123,441 AC $151,632, FM DvC $140,044, AC $152,048, FM AC / FM $161,148 DpC 116,796, DpC DpC $152,110, $152,048, DpC Base Salary Top Step Deputy Chief $122,720 $142,620 DvC NA N/A DvC $118,524 $166,788, FM $152,148 $168,943 Base Salary Top Step Chief $158,704 $185,000 $188,688 $148,907 $149,640 $224,736 $170,278 $186,176 Span of control between Battalion Chiefs and Captains? 1 to 5 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 to 2 1 to 3 No Answer 1 to 4 8 to 1 Salary increase percentage from engineer to Captain? 20% 13% 14% N/A 15% No Answer 10% 10% Total agency budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010? $12,004,315 $16,108,638 $8,007,992 $3,980,331 $6,932,897 $148,269,642 $14,404,185 $101,000,000 Total annual overtime budget for Agency? $645,000 $2,250,000 $529,892 $85,927 $203,000 $11,406,807 $507,000 $4,300,000 Average annual overtime pay per employee? $14,336 $39,501 $15,585 $10,383 $5,996 $22,036 $10,040 $7,000 Educational Incentive Pay percentage of total 1.12% GF, .87% budget? 1.40% 3% 0.41% Not Answer other funds No Answer 1.80% 2% s EIP is incorporated into overtime pay calculations? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 receive FO, 1 Average Educational Incentive pay per employee? $0 $7,800 $1,714 $0 CO, 2%/4% $4,918 $3,950 $0 Retirement 0 Retirement, 3%, Med. 0, med. $1,187 9% Ret., $1,756 0 Retirement, Ret. 0, Medical Amount of employee contributions to retirement, 10% - 20% Dental 0, 9% PERS, O Annual for Med. Ann, Dental Med $190 pm, Dental, Vision medical, dental, and vision plans? Medical $0 Vision 0 MDV Family $127 M, $18.75 M 0 Dental/Visons Flat fee $800 Number of staff receiving “Fire Officer” salary 11 / $75 per enhancement, and what is pay rate hike? None 34 /3% mth. 17 / 5% 10 / 2% 122 / .5% 18 / 5% None Does your Fire Chief participates in contract negotiations? Yes No No No Yes - advisory Yes Yes Yes Note: The EDHFD figures do not reflect April 2011 retirements of 1 Battalion Chief and 3 Captains

The EDHFD staffing and deployment strategy does not fit service demands of the community and is not cost effective. The Department top-heavy business model is inflexible and out of step with the realities of what an EDH fireman does on a daily basis. El Dorado Hills Firefighters are, for the most part, a first responder medical resource and non- emergency community service provider. On balance, the Firefighters perform fire related services about 4.2% of the time, and very little of that time entails actually fighting a fire. Firefighting duties are more frequently needed when firefighting companies perform Strike Team support for outside jurisdictions during the peak fire season. However, the EDHFD is staffed and deployed as a fire fighting force for a community that sustains relatively few fires. By contrast an EDHFD union leader testified that there was a shortage of ambulances in El Dorado County, even though responding to medical emergencies is the Department’s primary service. A chief level officer disagreed with this assessment of ambulance service and described a seemingly well- coordinated and flexible system that is deployed to maximize EDC ambulance coverage. As of March 2011, the EDHFD was staffed as follows: Table 5: March 2011 EDHFD Firefighter and Administrative Staffing Firefighter Staffing Administrative Staffing 1 Acting Chief 1 Chief Financial Officer 1 Deputy Chief 1 Systems Administrator 1 Division Chief (Fire Marshal) 3 Administrative Assistants 1 Battalion Chief (Admin) 1 Operations Specialist 3 Battalion Chief (Shift) 1 Fire Prevention Specialist 13 Captains 7 Total Administrative Staff 11 Engineers 23 Firefighters 56 Total Firefighting Staff Note: This table does not include the one Battalion Chief and three Captains that retired in April 2011. An EDHFD staff report prepared which summarized a January 26, 2009 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting shed light on the Department staffing and low service demands in EDH. The report was used by Department administration to oppose adding a fourth firefighter Engine Company position to outlying stations due to low service demands (NOTE: this was before the 2009 13% downturn in calls for service, 28% reduction in structure fires, and 50% reduction in wild land fires): “Our safety record is great; other jurisdictions minimum staff at 2 in El Dorado County, 3 in the Sacramento region, 4 on Truck Companies and Sacramento City. We currently are at 4 minimum on the truck, 4 at one outlying station, and 3 at the other two stations. As far as incident statistics go, emergency personnel respond on a half dozen confirmed structure fires per year in district and up to a dozen outside our district (Auto-Mutual Aid.) Our reasons for such low numbers are an affluent community, newer construction, early electronic detection, some residential sprinkler systems, very well planned and commercial development, mostly concrete tilt-up with sprinkler systems and electronic detection, as well as national average for minimum staffing of 2 Engine/Truck Companies and meet NFPA 1710…NFPA is a standard that is very costly to meet and maintain.” According to a Union official and Chief level officer, the Department’s firefighters have semi-structured hours during their two-day work week. He described a typical day (absent calls for service) as follows:  7:00 AM - Wake up and have breakfast  8:00 AM - Check Fire Rig, safety equipment, and medications  Morning - Work out for sixty minutes followed by a 30 minute cool down period (the time of the workout is flexible)  10:00- 11:00 AM - Participate in a late morning training or community services  One hour lunch  Afternoon - Conduct community services such as: tours, school visits, inspections, prevention training, and station chores  After 5PM - Dinner and uncommitted time, unless the above chores or exercise periods were not completed during the day  Sleep and wake up at 7:00 2009 and 2010 Staffing Comparisons Table 6 was produced by the EDHFD in November 2010 at the request of the Grand Jury with respect to the issue of fire engine and fire truck (with ladder) staffing compared to other fire departments. Table 6: 2009 and 2010 Engine and Truck Staffing Comparisons 2009 2009 2010 2010 Engine Ladder Truck Engine Ladder Truck Cameron Park/Cal Fire 2 to 3 0 2 to 3 0 Folsom City 3 4 3 4 El Dorado County 2 0 2 0 El Dorado Hills 4 5 4* 5* Roseville City 3 4 3 4 Sacramento Metro 4 4 3 4 South Placer 2 2 to 4 2 2 to 4 *In speaking to a chief officer, he corrected the graph to state that the Department currently staffs an Engine Company with three (except Station 87) and each Truck Company has a crew of four (it takes two teams of two to man the apparatus). Span of Control Span of control refers to the number of employees over which a supervisor has authority. The 54-member department is staffed in a traditional manner, with seven ranks and seven pay scales. Twenty of the uniformed staff supervises the other 34. A Fire Captain supervises one or two Firefighters and one Engineer. Battalion Chiefs also work two 24-hour shifts every six days, and supervise four Captains and four stations. Floaters A floater is generally the least senior Firefighter on duty who is used as a flexible position to fill in for vacancies throughout the Department as a means to reduce a 24-hour shift of overtime. The Department’s Memorandum of Understanding specifically forbids the use of floaters for daily staffing. Volunteers The Department budgets $85,000 annually for its volunteer program. There are currently 35 EDHFD volunteers. Volunteers are paid $15 per incident to which they respond. A $100 fee is paid to the Volunteer Firefighter’s Association each time a full engine is staffed by volunteers and when certain criteria are met. A volunteer firefighter receives an hourly rate of pay when that firefighter is used to staff an ambulance or to respond on a Strike Team under a Joint Powers Agreement/Mutual Aid/Office of Emergency Service Agreement. In 2010, volunteers participated in 2,326 alarm responses, and completed 2,668 hours of drill training, an average of 78 hours per volunteer. Their peak engine coverage by far was in July, followed by May. The EDHFD Firefighter Union resists broader usage of volunteers to reduce overtime. A union official cited the volunteers’ relative lack of training when compared to full-time Firefighters. However, volunteers possess Emergency Medical Technician certification, approximately 10 volunteers are paramedics, and volunteers attend annual update training as well. According to testimony, volunteers are currently used to supplant full-time firefighters, after the full-time firefighters have turned down overtime opportunities. Volunteers are also used to cover full-time Firefighters when they attend special events, such as funerals, and can ride along at will to assist full-time personnel.

Calls for service at the EDHFD’s four fully staffed stations are surprising low compared to the investment in staff, equipment, and facilities. In 93.7% of the cases, Department responses to calls for service involve medical calls, customer service, and auto accidents. If there is an incident involving a serious injury, the Fire Department responding Company either responds with an ambulance (from station 85) or waits for an El Dorado County Joint Powers Authority (JPA) ambulance to transport the victim. If the Station 85 JPA Ambulance is out of service, the closest alternative JPA ambulance responds. The Fire Department’s 2,245 calls for service in 2009, and 2,253 in 2010, rarely involved fires. According to the EDHFD 2009 Annual Report, only 4.8% (110) of the calls involved fires, and, as noted, according to the former Chief, only six were actual structure fires, and in 2010 only 4.3% (99) of the calls involved fires. According to the Annual Report, these fire losses amounted to only $1.2 million in 2009 and only $1.4 million in 2010. In 2009, two of these structure fires involved Cameron Park and Rescue jurisdiction fires that sustained a total of $700,000 in property damage; but these property losses appear to be incorporated into the El Dorado Hills fire loss calculations. The issue of defining and quantifying structure fires was perplexing. The former Fire Chief stated there were six structure fires in Fiscal Year 2009-10, yet the Board of Directors Annual Report for the same period listed 21 structure fires. The current Acting Chief told the Grand Jury that he did not know how his predecessor arrived at the figure of six annual structure fires. When the Grand Jury asked for clarification from two Board members they could not answer, nor could a union official. Any inconsistency in the reported data contained in this report concerning structure fires results from the inconsistency in the information given to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury requested available documentation for structure fires for 2009-10. The EDHFD administration provided 41 National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) Dollar Loss Threshold Reports that detailed responses to 40 of the 62 fire related responses between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. An analysis of the two years of reports revealed the following:  40 of the 62 incidents occurred in the EDHFD jurisdiction.  19 of 40 EDHFD jurisdiction fire incidents did not have NFIRS reports – only log entries on the Dollar Threshold Report.  Seven of the 40 EDHFD reported fire incidents occurred in other fire jurisdictions, but were entered as EDH fires.  22 of the 62 incidents occurred out of EDHFD jurisdiction.  Of the 22 outside jurisdiction incidents, 12 responses entailed staging only, no fire action taken, or en-route cancelation.  Overall responses to serious Structural Fire Calls in the El Dorado Hills jurisdiction involved an average response of 20 EDHFD Firefighters.  Three of the outside jurisdiction structure fire responses involved only one EDHFD firefighter acting in an administrative capacity.  None of the fires appeared to require a rescue from a structure The Grand Jury examined the Alarm Statistics page contained in the 2010 Annual Report and found conflicting structure fire numbers, as Table 7 illustrates. Table 7: 2009 AND 2010 FIRE RELATED ALARMS 2009 2010 Structure Fires 21 19 Fire in Building 5 12 Chimney Fires 4 6 Total Structure Fires 30 37 Grass/Brush Fires 33 40 Vehicle Fires 15 7 Misc. Fires 132 15 Total Misc. Fires 80 62 The Call for Service (CFS) numbers and percentage breakdowns from the EDHFD Annual Reports are contained in Table 8, as follows: 2009‐2010 Calls for Service 2009‐2010 Medical Calls Breakdown 2009 2010 2009 2010 Medical 55% 57% General 51% 50% Injury from Customer Service 17.4% 25%* Trauma 15% 18% False Canceled 13% 5% Auto Accidents 13.1% 12% Auto Accidents 8.3% 7% Cardiac 13.1% 12% Hazardous Materials 1.3% 2% Respiratory 7.8% 8% Misc. Fires 1.4% 2% Transfers .5% 0% Brush Fires 1.5% 1% Structure Fires 1.3% 1% Vehicle Fires .67% 0% Note: The above calls for service numbers are pulled directly from the Department’s Computer Aided Dispatch System, and the categorization is based on what the caller reports, not necessarily what the event turns out to be. By contrast, crime statistics are pulled from crime reports, not the CAD system, and tend to be more outcomes directed. *Customer Service calculations were changed in 2010 to include false calls (but the policy change was not indicated on the Annual Report). Calls for Service per station vary between Stations as Table 7 depicts. Table 9: 2009 Calls for Service Per Station Responses Percentage Daily 2009 2009 2009 Station 84 ‐ Francisco Dr. 551 28.70% 1.5 Station 85 ‐ Wilshire Blvd. 628 28.70% 1.7 Station 86 ‐ Bass Lake Rd. 320 16.70% 0.87 Station 87 ‐ Golden Foothill Pkwy. 416 21.70% 1.1

The EDH Firefighters Association is a primary contributor to the electoral campaigns of the EDH Board of Directors. An EDH Professional Firefighter’s Association representative stated the union represents 48 of the Department’s 56 uniformed staff, and the union strives to find and back Board of Director candidates who are union friendly. In fact, the union funds the filing fees and campaign expenses for some candidates, and assists with campaign activities. The Grand Jury contacted the EDC Elections Office to determine if any of the candidates filed itemized campaign statements for the November 2010 election. The Elections Office indicated none of the Fire Board candidates filed forms indicating they had spent over $1,000 for their campaigns – thus relieving them of the responsibility of itemizing expenses or contributions. The EDHFD union official informed the Grand Jury that during contract negotiations the Firefighter’s Association is represented by a labor attorney whose office is based in San Jose. He also said the Board of Directors is represented during contract negotiations by two Board members. Board members told the Grand Jury that they have an attorney they can consult, but that the attorney is not specifically a labor contract attorney. The current president of the Board of Directors is listed as a retired EDHFD firefighter in the EDHFD Annual Report.

The EDHFD indirect 911 system lengthens response times. One EDHFD official commented that fire responses are delayed due to delays in call answering and processing times when callers use cell phones. Station 87 was built to reduce response times in its service area. The Grand Jury is concerned that some of the gains achieved by building, and staffing, and strategically locating its four stations could be negated by delays at the front end of the double-layered cell phone process. When El Dorado Hills residents experience a fire related emergency and call 911 from a cell phone, the call is first routed to the Highway Patrol Communications Center in Rancho Cordova, the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Law enforcement is generally the PSAP over fire agencies. Once the phone is answered, the dispatcher determines the appropriate jurisdiction and type of call; the fire emergency caller is transferred to the EDHFD’s shared Cal Fire Communications Center in Camino. The EDHFD encourages EDH residents to use the ten-digit direct Camino phone number (530-626-4911) to bypass the CHP step. One official called the CHP’s 911 Center “overwhelmed” due to its service area of four counties. Another authority said the CHP does misroute calls on occasion and lacks the knowledge of local geography that is important to dispatchers. Another official commented that even if the initial CHP step was eliminated, the cell phone 911 calls would still go to the El Dorado County PSAP, the Sheriff’s Office, and not directly to the Cal Fire line. He also said he was unaware of any CHP delays beyond 45 seconds. The Grand Jury asked if there was data on call answering and processing times at the CHP’s Rancho Cordova communications facility, but found that the information was not tracked by EDC authorities.

West Slope Fire District Consolidation Planners should be cognizant of disparate firefighter labor contracts. Because EDC subsidies to some fire districts are expiring at the end of 2011, the issue of consolidating six fire districts on EDC’s Western Slope is now being explored. One proposal calls for the EDHFD to annex other fire districts, all of which will struggle financially once the County subsidies are gone. Annexation would enable other fire districts to piggy-back onto the EDHFD exemption from “Education Revenue Augmentation Funds.” The ERAF funding redirects up to 10% of the revenue from most special districts to local schools. Though such annexation could streamline services and increase revenues up to 10% for smaller fire districts, it is unclear how the disproportionate labor contacts for each of the fire departments would be impacted by consolidation and annexation.

Comments made by EDHFD union officials to the news media may mislead the public. One study publicly cited by the EDHFD Firefighters Union, entitled “Firefighting Tactics, Measured Scientifically,” to support the need for four firefighters on an “Engine” truck (no ladder), indicates that four firefighters can fight a fire from start to finish 25% more effectively and safely than three. However this study has little relevance to how fires are responded to in El Dorado Hills. When a fire call is dispatched in El Dorado Hills, three engines and a truck (with ladder) are dispatched simultaneously, and an average of twenty firefighters respond to reports of serious fires. The study involves only four firefighters fighting a fire from start to finish. The other industry standard cited publicly by a Firefighters Association official involves the “Two-in -Two-out” rule where two firefighters must remain outside a potential burning structure while two enter. The Firefighters Association publicly cited this staffing rule to justify four firefighters on an “Engine” (fire truck without a ladder). The implication was that a resident would have to wait for a second engine to arrive before a rescue entry could be attempted. The purpose for the “Two in-Two out” standard is to ensure an effective rescue of a firefighter can be achieved if one of the firefighters inside encounters difficulties. An EDHFD procedural exception to the “Two in- Two out” rule occurs when a resident rescue must be attempted. In other words, if three firefighters were present at a scene necessitating a rescue, the firefighters present would not wait for a second engine to be on the scene before entering. Again, three other fully staffed fire vehicles would be responding to assist. Further, nearly all surrounding Fire Departments surveyed have three firefighters assigned to an Engine. Significantly, in reviewing all the structural fire calls to which EDHFD responded in 2009-2010, not a single one appeared to require an actual resident rescue.

Recommendations 12

R1

During contract negotiations, the EDHFD Board of Directors must be aware of and take responsible action regarding contract provisions that impact long term retirement costs in order to safeguard and protect taxpayer funds. Prior Boards of Directors approved costly contract provisions that resulted in long term consequences that have come to haunt the current board, and will impact future boards unless they are addressed. When the Grand Jury spoke to Board members they did not know if certain contract perks were PERSable, including Education Incentive Pay. Education incentives are PERSable, and over time cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars per employee, i.e. hidden escalators. If a newly hired firefighter with a paramedic certificate starts at $80,000 base salary, works for thirty years and lives in retirement for 20 years, the cost to taxpayers for the paramedic incentive is $360,000. According to a publication from American River College and website Salary.com, the median annual salary for paramedics not employed by a fire department in the Sacramento region is $41,229. Obtaining a Fire Officer Certificate earns a firefighter a 3% pay increase. At $80,000 annual salary over a 50-year employment and retirement period, this amounts to an additional $120,000 for obtaining the Fire Officer certificate. If the same firefighter is promoted and is paid $100,000 per year, and maximizes EIP pay at 25% of base pay, the cost to taxpayers is over one million dollars ($1,000,000). It is no wonder that costs for the Educational Incentive Program tripled over a five-year period after contract language changed the educational incentive from a fixed amount to a percentage. A Chief Level firefighter receives $12,000 in “management pay.” Management pay is offered to compensate chief officers for their inability to earn overtime pay like their subordinates. Management pay is PERSable as well. Over a 20-year retirement period, chief level firefighters receive a $240,000 bonus for not receiving overtime pay. In contrast, subordinates’ overtime pay is not PERSable. The long term costs of these contract benefits go unnoticed by the general public who elects the Board of Directors to ensure the expenditure of taxpayer funds is conducted in a reasonable manner.
R2

The EDHFD should reconsider the purpose of Educational Incentive Pay. Members of the EDHFD Board of Directors told the Grand Jury that incentive pay was provided for two reasons: (1) to develop leadership within the Department, and (2) to maintain a benefit plan that would keep firefighters from transferring to a higher paying Fire Department. In the unlikely event a firefighter would leave the EDHFD due to cuts in the EIP program, there would likely be, in today’s economy, a cavalcade of applicants to replace the firefighter - including highly qualified firefighters recently laid off from other jurisdictions. In many governmental agencies and private corporations, new hires are given automatic step increases as a reward for additional education. Step increases do not provide “stackable” career and lifetime benefits; they merely move the employee to a top step sooner. In terms of Fire Officer and Fire Chief pay, employees should not be rewarded for studying or preparing for promotion. The pay increase upon promotion is the proper financial reward, as is done in other fire departments.
R3

The Proposition 13 property tax revenue allocation to the EDHFD needs to be re-evaluated. Taxpayer money is taxpayer money regardless of its origin or revenue stream. The EDHFD is over compensated and staffed inefficiently. While teachers annually face layoffs and municipal fire departments struggle, the EDHFD Firefighters average annual overtime pay is $39,000 and annual EID is nearly $8,000. This is along with a two day work-week (not including vacation and other leaves) every six days in which eating, exercising, and sleeping is included. The firefighting staff also receives longevity pay, no-cost retirement, medical, and dental care. The Board also maintains comparatively high General and Capital Reserve Funds. The existing property tax revenue tax redistribution formula should be evaluated by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors to determine if the EDHFD is funded sufficiently to guarantee a reasonable level of quality public safety, and not to over-compensate their employees.
R4

The Board of Directors must be more knowledgeable, professional, and proactive with its labor negotiation efforts. The Board of Directors should hire professional management assistance when negotiating labor contracts with the Firefighters Union. The Board of Directors does not hire professional negotiation consultants, and has not conducted a comprehensive compensation salary and work performance study of comparable fire departments since 2006. The Directors need to be forearmed with professional level facts and figures to adequately represent the interest of taxpayers. In the past, they appeared to be unprepared to deal with the EDHFD union, which hires a labor attorney specializing in representing public safety unions for their contract negotiations. The Board of Directors needs to be more proactive and should assess and evaluate the long term costs to taxpayers when negotiating contract terms such as education incentive pay, mandatory staffing, management pay, eliminating floaters, as well as zero cost retirement, medical, and dental plans.
R5

The Board of Directors must include their Fire Chief in labor negotiations to incorporate a management perspective. Currently, the EDHFD Fire Chief is expected to manage a budget in which he has limited input. This was a common complaint of the recently retired Fire Chief. As Table 4 illustrates, the majority of fire departments do include the Chief in their negotiations. The Fire Chief needs the ability to provide management input into compensation and staffing issues before he is expected to implement them.
R6

The Board of Directors should conduct a comprehensive study to compare its compensation package with other fire departments before approving a contract for 2011-2012. The current Board is comprised of a different set of Directors than those who approved the 2005-2006 Memorandum of Understanding. The Board needs to fully comprehend that their Department pays the highest compensation but has the lowest calls for service ratio in the Sacramento region. When the Grand Jury spoke to Directors they were unable to answer basic questions, concerning overtime budgeting, calls for service, and structure fire quantification. The current board should be equipped with up-to-date facts and figures of compensation and service demand data for comparable fire departments. The Board should be up to date on alternative best practices staffing plans that have proven successful in other fire departments. The Board should also research ways to make the EDHFD a more cost effective organization, such as the use of floaters and volunteers to reduce overtime.
R7

The Board of Directors should determine whether national standards are applicable to the service demands of El Dorado Hills and not take national studies at face value. With low firefighting service demands, national standards that apply to major cities may not apply to El Dorado Hills. El Dorado Hills has six structure fires per year, but has four fully staffed and funded fire stations that are close in proximity. EDH buildings are relatively new, and well-equipped with sprinklers, alarms, and other fire prevention devices. There are no high rises, tenements, or oil refineries. EDH needs quality firefighting staffing and resources, but not at the same ratio as a major American metropolis with myriad firefighting challenges.
R8

The Board of Directors needs to consider more efficient methods to deploy EDH Firefighters. The Board of Directors needs to consider staffing alternatives to reduce overtime and operating budget expenditures. Budget priorities need to be identified by EDH community service needs. Examples of cost cutting measures the Board should consider are:  Change the orientation of their 35-member EMT qualified volunteer force to more of a “Reserve” force to use as an overtime reduction and back staffing coverage tool. This will also help to assess potential candidates for Firefighter.  Temporary closure or a reduction in services in one of the stations with the lowest service demands, and/or re-strategizing response deployments to medical responses.  Develop a more flexible and efficient service-demand staffing plan. The recently retired Fire Chief called his agency “overstaffed” which is highly unusual in public safety circles. A union official testified to the lack of ambulance services in El Dorado County. The EDHFD administration should evaluate ambulance and fire services to determine if El Dorado Hills residents have too many resources for firefighting services and not enough for ambulance services. It is abundantly clear that medical care is the EDHFD core service. Employing industry “best practices” as a start for a flexible staffing plan that reflects EDH service demands should be developed and implemented.  Reduce or eliminate the rank of Battalion Chief. The Department should find alternatives to staffing Battalion Chiefs for two-day 24-hour shifts, which appears to be an unnecessary layer of supervision. There are well trained and well compensated Captains on duty to supervise two or three subordinates for one to two calls per day. Having 24/7 Battalion Chiefs is good for supervisory continuity in a larger and busier fire department, but it is a costly strategy for a smaller / less busy department like the EDHFD. In the off- chance a captain could not adequately handle a situation, an on-duty or on-call Battalion Chief, Deputy Chief or Division Chief could be contacted to answer a question or respond to command a scene.
R9

Authorities considering consolidation and annexation of smaller El Dorado County fire departments into the El Dorado Hills Fire Department should closely consider the potential personnel costs before proceeding further. Authorities contemplating annexation / consolidation of EDC West Slope Fire Departments should fully understand the EDHFD MOU. The smaller, more rural, fire districts surrounding EDHFD cannot afford the salary and benefit package currently in force at EDHFD. If consolidation were adopted, it is probable that in the future disparate firefighters of the merged fire districts would attempt to form one bargaining unit. Obviously, allied firefighters from the smaller agencies would start demanding “We want what EDHFD gets!” Further, one avenue publicly discussed for consolidation involves the EDHFD annexing smaller EDC agencies. Annexation would possibly enable the smaller agencies to operate under the umbrella of the EDHFD dual county status. This status enables the EDHFD to avoid paying the 10% “Education Revenue Augmentation Funds” shift of property tax revenues that currently go to schools. It is probable that the property tax revenue that currently goes to schools would instead go to increasing the salaries and benefits of merged firefighters while local schools continue to lay off teachers and increase student to teacher ratios.
R10

The EDHFD should make broader use of volunteers to reduce overtime. Other fire departments use volunteers more effectively to reduce overtime costs than the EDHFD. Generally, there are three paramedic-licensed firefighters on an “Engine” in the EDHFD. There are many more paramedic-licensed firefighters at nearby stations to lend paramedic assistance if necessary. Once a volunteer is EMT certified (12 volunteers have paramedic licenses), he or she should be satisfactory to fill in on the one to two calls per day service demands of the fire stations to save 24 hours of overtime pay. The Fire Administration explained that a more structured volunteer program is being considered that may result in more of a firefighter “Reserve” Program, where volunteers are paid more substantial stipends. It was explained that some volunteers are persons who have full time jobs and commit their time out of a sense of civic duty, while others are planning careers as firefighters and are trying to gain job experience. The Board of Directors must ensure that the Fire Chief develops a scheduling model that ensures a reduction in future overtime cost to the minimum necessary.
R11

The EDHFD should continue to research methods to reduce 911 call answering and processing time. The front end of the cell phone call reporting process lengthens response times. To what degree the response time is increased is not known, as only anecdotal evidence has been cited or collected. According to an EDC 911 center administrator, an ongoing state-funded project entitled the “Red Project” will enable El Dorado Hills callers to reach the EDC Sheriff’s Office PSAP directly, avoiding the CHP step. Therefore, the dispatcher answering the call would have an orientation to El Dorado County that a CHP dispatcher may not have. The project is a joint effort between the State, cell phone companies, CHP, and local fire and law enforcement authorities. Panicked El Dorado Hills victims are not going to remember a ten-digit phone number, unless they have it programmed into their cell phones. Until the Red Project is fully implemented, EDH residents should have a dedicated 916 area code number to call to get routed directly to the Cal Fire dispatch facility on their land-line phones and cell phones. The Grand Jury recommends that before the project is implemented, current benchmark data concerning call answering and call processing times should be collected and analyzed to determine what those factors are presently and how they have been impacted with the implementation of the Red Project.
R12

Representatives of the EDHFD Professional Firefighter Association should ensure that their public statements are factually sound. The general public supports their firefighters for the work they do and the sacrifices they make. Firefighter spokespersons should not violate that support by embellishing facts and figures to justify contract enhancements. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This Report has been provided to the El Dorado Hills Fire Department Board of Directors for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

El Dorado Hills Community Services District Special District