order the meeting at 510. >> All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for coming early. Um, I will talk a little bit here. We can always revisit these slides. Nothing is new on these slides. is basically just a regurgitation of what was sent out in the packet, but do you want to go over them again? Um, today we're here to talk about the fire department staffing model. Um, and items we'll cover in the session are call types and call volume, stress level for firefighters and different staffing models moving forward. The current model for call types and I we will come back to this obviously as it um all encompasses into the major item of the staffing model. Current model is respond to all call types. current projection for call volume for 2025 is between 639. I just did a linear results from year to date um which were provided by the um in the packet to year end and then I also um based on the projections that were done within the software it says it's 662 and that's based on last year's numbers of how many calls we had from today or year to date to LA to the end of the year last year and it says that same percentage will happen um for the rest of the year. So, it's somewhere between those. Again, that's the current projection. It could stop tomorrow and we could have no calls for the rest of year, but again, we don't know that. Um, and again, we're anticipating a 10% increase in calls for 2026 moving forward as well. So, that'll be roughly 720, which has been the numbers that were used in the staffing models um for the numbers and um hours that we're using the financial stuff. >> Can I stop you for a second? >> Yes. >> What are we at right now? We are at 420 calls. Projected to be current today is 647. Current incident change is roughly. It's down a little bit at 7.12. >> So 647. So somewhere in my 639 to 662 number again close. >> So 620 right now projected to I'm sorry I wasn't wring fast enough. I was meeting. >> Um we're 420 today. >> Yep. Um current projection is 647 and that of course that changes dayto day depending on the number of calls and then it's uh projected currently to be 7.12 current just to give >> percent increase from last year. Correct? >> And then current yearover-year change today was 13.82. So we took last year's year to date through today and today's year to date today be 13% increase from last year. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Obviously the future model needs to be discussed as part of this item tonight as council has not has mentioned adjusting call types but we've not actually made any decisions on that. So want to make sure that's touched base on tonight. And then what the call volume is is unknown. Excuse me. Um the result is that all of us want to adjust the requirements for number of hours that our firefighters have to spend away from their families and how we do that is different for everyone. Um and it's likely a combination of multiple things that's the best option typically. Doesn't mean that one way would help it more than the other way. I'm just saying that typically it's a combination of things that helps the best stress level firefighters. This was mentioned in the packet that was sent out. Our current model is a pain on call system where the payjo goes off and whether you go to the call or don't go to the call. There is a level of stress or anxiety that each firefighter likely faces whether they can go, can't go, or just choose not to. And the future model is unsure of what the future model brings, but discussing the stress level that each firefighter takes on with the job is important. And the graph is just for representation. Um it's just a linear regression graph essentially that says the more calls per month we have um equals more stress level on our paid on call system. 2021 we were at about a three and now we're at about a seven today based on a again 50 it's a 50 54 calls a month roughly. I know there's been a few months this year that we've been over 54. Correct chief? Yeah, we've got January, February, we're I think 62 and 64. And then uh >> June, I believe, is our third busiest month at 59, I think. >> Okay. >> There's been a couple different months, but there have been a few months that have been over that 54 number. And then again, that graph is not developed by us. That's developed by the national standard from my understanding. >> Just created NFPA 1720. Okay. >> Is the volunteer model. >> Okay. Um, we went through and I gave each one of the staff models and standby models for um, in the packet. Again, I'm going to talk about them just quickly so we can go over them and then I'm happy to bring up the Excel file and adjust and amend things and we can play with them. That's what the work session is for. So, you can go through different scenarios and different models. Um, obviously trying to keep it as consistent as possible across all three models so that we're trying to be somewhat consistent that with them, but we can adjust any of them as as needed. The standby model um is a model that was brought up to us by cultic. Essentially a standby time of 7 hours or 7 and a half hours um roughly 4 to 11:30 that could be adjusted. That's just a general scheduled time. Two hours of those time would be at the station. So we're able to amend and not have station maintenance night. So we could not have one more night out of the month that the firefighters are away from their families. They could spend the second Thursday with their family instead of having to do station maintenance. And then five and a half hours of that time when they'd be at home basically waiting for a call. They could go to calls during that time as well. So that's the first ones out the door that would be going during that call time. So um part of the model below is how do we amend those times because they're doubled up. Um, I've talked with this with the chief and I don't know how to do a better job of this because part of the standby time at 5 and a half hours, which is that second line down on the graph or the not I don't even know what to call the spreadsheet is all those five and a half hours at home. >> So to clarify, they're getting paid $17 an hour just to be at home. >> That's correct. For those five and a half hours, they're paid 17 bucks an hour. >> And if they go to calls and they get paid 30 bucks an hour, >> but they wouldn't get paid the $17 because now they're getting paid the 30. They're not going to get paid 47. >> They won't get paid 47. But that's part of the model that we know it's in there already, but I don't know what number to use and you the chief of um they're double counted in there because 4,0004 hours includes $17 an hour and it includes the calls for firefighter all calls at 2736. That includes calls during that 5 and a half hour time frame. I don't know how many that will be. I have no idea. Again, we could guess and check, but I don't know. So that's why they're doubled up. So, I want to make sure that's clarified that it's doubled up right now because we don't know which calls are going to happen during that 5 and a half hours and which ones are not. >> So, some of that 4,000 hours is doubled up. >> Yes. >> Along with the 2736 they're together. >> They're in they're together because it's expected that you're going to have all you're going to have calls during that 5 and a half hours of time. >> Right. But I don't want to say, okay, now we're not going to have the five and a half hours of standby time because if that's all we have, then we have $17 an hour in there, but then we need to take away some 2736 all call time. >> Yep. >> Cuz there won't be calls during that time or maybe you have calls outside of that time. So >> it's a little complicated and difficult >> to guess and check. It's >> how many calls typically come in between 4 and 11:30 p.m. Is that the majority? Half? Less than half >> there. So majority of our calls come in between 0700 and 4:30 in the afternoon. >> Okay. >> Which is roughly about 400. >> Okay. >> And then so you've got a deficit of whatever you know 300ish. So all the models are based on 720 calls. >> Okay. >> So we kept that >> that consistent >> consistent across all the models. >> Correct. >> Correct. Um so but so that so there is double up but not that much. It's not like most of it is doubled up. There's a small portion that's doubled up. >> It depends on how much you think of is too much or not enough. I mean, everyone's theory is different. If it's $100, is that too much? Is that not enough? Is it If it's $1,000, is that too much or not enough? I I don't know. >> I was just I mean, if it's a majority, then that's a big deal. But if it's a minority, then it's not as significant. >> So, outside of that standby time, then those individuals wouldn't be expected to answer calls. >> They would still be expected to answer all calls from my understanding. >> All calls. Yes. Yes. So anytime out of that 4 to 11:30 it would be just a regular paid on call system like it is today. That's my understanding. And maybe I'm wrong. Again, this is cultic's model and >> yeah, if the bell rings that there was a major fire, you're going to have to have more help than just the two guys that are on. >> I'm thinking what the mayor is mentioning is like at noon >> talking about all Yeah. At noon >> at noon >> we'd have to have a firefighter. >> When we figured out the 400ish calls, it's based on uh 4.4 four 4.8 firefighters during that time frame. >> Um during the day 07 to 4:30 >> roughly between 4:30 and um 11:30 um we'll say there's about 164 calls and then the remaining between say 11:30 to 07 is roughly about 155 thereabouts. >> And the 4.4 four and 4.8 or six numbers. That's based on your the number of people that generally respond to. >> Yeah. And actually, that's actually low. Um I ran the numbers for that the other day. >> I asked for the numbers off of the sheet to get what that looked like. I want to know where the 4.4 came from. >> Today it's more like uh 6.3 currently. Um with um about 1.6 six of them thereabouts um at the station. So, it's about 6.1 to 6.3. So, the number that's in there is actually probably low lower than what we're seeing today, which isn't a bad thing. We like to see obviously more um but based on the numbers when we ran this originally is around that 44. So, I would say the 44s on the truck and then the other people are at the station >> show up at the station or whatever. >> They still got pay for the time. They could still get paid for the call. >> Yeah. that that part I didn't have anything to do with that. You guys are just adding that in. >> Yeah, but that's because >> I don't know how you figure it. Um >> these are the same across all the models. >> Yes, it's consistent across all the models. >> So you're saying that if at 1:30 in the afternoon there's a medical call. >> And you don't know who goes until that call comes in obviously, but you don't send four firefighters to just a simple call. We so we put out an all call >> and whoever can come to the station >> um so we're looking for the masses um to you know because we don't know the number of people that are available. >> Um so my understanding from previous conversations was that the issue was more finding people to come during the day than in the evening. Am I incorrect in that? >> No, that is correct. So to get a majority of the 400 >> Yeah. So then I guess why did the standby time go in the evening? If that's not when the issue is if the issue is during the day, why isn't the standby time for those daytime calls if that's when the issue is? >> I think it's because that's when most of our firefighters are not available because they have full-time jobs. >> Yeah, I'm I'm presuming here. I'm not knowing because I don't know what our firefighters do for a daytime job. >> At least >> most of them have outside employment than the city. I guess my question is this isn't if the issue is daytime hours. I I'm not sure having standby time in the evening is going to address the underlying issue of we don't have enough people showing up during the day. If that is the ultimate like issue we're trying to address is that there's not enough people during the day. I just not sure that this model would address that underlying issue even for I mean it might help with a budgeting issue but like the underline of issues we need someone to show up at noon. I don't see that this model is necessarily going to fix that problem. >> The chief will run calls if needed. Yeah, >> but I also want to understand and say that yeah, the chief can run calls and we can say yep, you have to run every call that goes during the day, but then we need him to do other things to, you know, during the day. This is similar to my position when I was the finance director and then I came became city admin. I need to have an accountant behind me to do the journal entries or the running the payroll or whatever because it doesn't it's not an efficient use of my time to run that stuff or do those entries or pay put checks into the system. Um, as a city administrator, I don't feel that that's a good use of my time and my efforts. I would simply I would think the same thing for the chief is I don't want to, you know, I know the chief, you know, would like to run calls, but we pay him, I don't know, $67 an hour. I don't feel like that's a really good use of resources to send him on every call. um he can he will but doesn't mean it's probably the best use of resources when we could have somebody um and have the chief do something else whether it's emergency amendment planning or five-year plan which I know council fashion has asked for doing planning and calls >> well emergency response plan or other things that the council's looking for from the chief instead of doing call call response because if you're going to pay somebody for call response I'm going to tell you right now I I don't think we should have a chief then we should just have a firefighter because it doesn't make sense to a chief if you want him just to run calls during the day. >> Well, it wouldn't be doing non-stop calls. >> No, it would not be. No, you're correct. But I'm what I'm saying is that part of this model is that you have all calls during the day and you want >> part of the model is 400 calls in a day. That's that's get a good response time down. The chief can run those calls, but >> I don't know if that's the best use. >> So, what we're basically talking about though is 400 calls for the year is 1. I didn't do the math, but Sure. >> Okay. 1.5 calls per per day. >> Per day. All all day. But if you break it down to just working hours is 6 with the data that we were given. >> Okay. >> Why would it not make sense to have one standby guy from that? I mean it if you can't go, Kevin should be able to go. I mean both of you wouldn't be tied up. >> You might be at a meeting or something where you can't go. >> Mhm. So rather than um I mean to me we there's got to be a way you can pull out >> we could >> it makes no sense to ring the bell because this all call thing is the dumbest idea ever. >> Tell that to a lot of communities that's all they have. So I mean >> well I mean it makes sense makes no sense to have 26 firefighters not that they're all going to come >> for a medical whatever. >> Mhm. I mean, yeah, if uh city hall is burning down, I suppose you want everybody to come, but whatever. >> I think if we had a fire period, it'd be good to have everybody come, but >> just like the other night, I mean, >> is the assistant chief available to come to calls? >> Yep. He runs calls as well. >> Okay. But like from a financial standpoint, is that >> I mean, that's better than the chief, I would say. I mean, I don't know. >> That's $30 an hour versus 67. >> Correct. >> Yep. That was the premise, part of the premise for going fulltime. >> Yes, that was >> And they run when we were sold, but >> And they run a lot of culture today. I do know that. It feels like for on average 6 calls during the day between 7 a.m. and 5:00 pm that that's such a low occurring thing that it should be able to be covered. And I'm not saying that I don't like the standby model because I think it does add predictability and like I I'm here for that actually. I I like that setup more. Um, I just feel like we're at a point where either we need to do what other communities have done, which is look at the calls we are going to so you don't get 26 people on a call that could wait for North to get there, even if it takes them 45 minutes. Um, and that's again >> I think that drives the whole thing. >> I I think so too. And I also um know that I probably should have said this last, you know, a couple days ago. Um but it would have been nice to see a scenario of like business as is to compare to where like this is just >> here's three completely different models than what we do now and nothing to look back on and say if we changed nothing as of today and we did exactly what we're doing right now, what would that look like? and then to be able to kind of morph that scenario into pieces of these different three. And again, that's partly on me for um not asking for that. So, I apologize. >> Yeah, I'm happy to run that scenario. It's not like I I won't. >> No, no, and I guess I'm just trying to acknowledge that I didn't ask you for that ahead of this meeting and I should have. Um but I think having uh the ability to compare to business as usual to these other models would have been helpful. >> Sure. Yeah. The duty curl only model I don't think is even feasible. We threw it in there because it's another model that we could run. I'm going to run through the other ones because I know that we threw four together. I don't think a duty crew model is even feasible to be honest with you. I don't think we have enough firefighters for it. I don't think we need duty crew model from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The dollars are not even close to where we need for the budget wise. So, I kind of threw that one out for the budget specifically, but I just don't think it's possible. >> Um, we can touch base on duty model if anybody wants to touch base on it and what that means. Um, no. Um, but I guess I should have maybe leveled the playing field to begin with. It would be nice to know what we spent last year and what we're what we have in the budget this year for >> was that in that spreadsheet you sent >> that should have been in the spreadsheet that was in the in the weekly update one I sent you. Well, I'm going to clarify. I sent three of the same spreadsheet. So, I apologize for which one is. Um, the first one I sent out was just numbers and then >> there was a corrected one. >> There was a corrected one because somebody asked me for >> some >> the numbers didn't match up one of them. >> Scott had pointed out one of those. >> Yes, the numbers did not though the the hours didn't match in the little scenario to the right. The numbers of hours didn't match with what the scenario was showing in the >> excuse me in the budget. So, I had to go back and fix the math on it. So, I fixed that and that was the second spreadsheet I sent down and said apologize about the math error. And then the last one I sent out was on the weekly update last week and that was after Cultur Fashion had asked me, can you give me actuals for this? >> I said it's difficult to throw actuals in there because the line items don't match. And so I tried to give my best explanation of why line items didn't match. And and I apologize if I was way off on things, but I tried to do my best to show where the budget was and where the actuals are cuz they don't line up any one of the years that we gave you. Maybe 23 maybe we did. >> Can >> it's been adjusted so many times. So >> do you happen to have that in front of you? I'm just trying to >> I can't pull it up >> through my email here and find >> way to pull it up on the screen. >> Um it it even just like I think this might be it actually. I got a lot of windows open. So also that is a me issue, not a you issue. >> Um so this was the one that was sent out to the council just something similar to what you see. So I'll go through this um now. Uh so 2023 I put the budget in here. Here's what the budget was 327,000 and then the actual was ended up being 368. And that difference is because of the fact that we had a $40,000 or additional $20,000 given to the fire relief. So that was a issue that the fire relief ran into that they needed to have 2022's budget dollars and they never actually asked for it during 2022. So they had to come in 2023. It was a cleanup item. So that's 20 grand. And then this state aid contribution ended being $20,000 more than what we anticipated it to be in the budget. However, we got that revenue in. So it's not like we lost any money in that landed because that's exactly what we got in exactly what we paid out of the fire relief. >> So between those two items which are both 20 grand over each, we are right on budget. 328 and 327 um within a thousand bucks I'd say is almost right on budget for 2023. Then after 2023 is when we started changing and mixing up things based on what we had wanted to plan out for for the fire department overall. >> 2024 is when we um needed we hired an assistant fire chief. We wanted to pay 30 bucks an hour to every firefighter um instead of se $17 an hour. And then we had planned on putting them into the PAR program. So, we weren't going to do the state fire um state fireman by retirement contribution for the state $88. And so, that got went away. Well, we ended up not paying them 30 bucks an hour because we couldn't use that 2% money that we had wanted to to pay the firefighters. We had to put that into retirement. So, we got told by PAR that we couldn't use it and they wouldn't give us the money unless we gave it to the fire relief. So, we punted on that idea and um said we can't do that. So, we essentially took $100,000 out of part-time employees and put it back down into state fire retirement contribution. >> That's what the 100 grand is here. And then 17 bucks an hour um as 164,000 for current model of 2024. Difference between PAR is because of the fact we didn't pay put them into the PAR program. So, essentially 571 was the budget, 487 was the actual. So, we ended up it's at a $84,000 under budget somewhere in there, give or take. And then 2025, where we're at so far this year, um the plan was to hire two full-time fire department personnel. And then the difference was going to be in parts of employees used at 30 bucks an hour. Again, no dollars for the state fireman fire retirement countries. I don't know why I have such a hard time with that number, that name. and then parah for the pinnacle firefighters and the two firefighters and the chief and the assistant chief. Um I did the actuals through the year so that you had those and then I tried to annualize them and just divided them by seven and multiply them by 12 so you had an annualized number and then I explained everything over 10,000 bucks and essentially it's because we haven't hired the full-timers. That's why we're way under budget there. We're right on budget pretty much with the part-time employees overall annualized and um the $110,000 we'll need to get this paid out because we don't we did not hire the full-timers which means we need to pay the state dollars to the fire relief again just like we did last year. So that's my guess in number is 110. I don't know what that number would be so it could be 125 and I wish I knew the formula but I don't. So right now we're projected to be about $104,000 under budget >> currently. >> And what the under budget from the year before did that just get banked somewhere? >> Yep. Yep. So that went into the general fund and it was put into our general fund fund balance that we had mentioned um that I think I mentioned it during 23 when we had to add to it because we went so far over budget in 23 not just in fire department but in every every department we had to add back to the fund balance to get to the 40% number that gets basically added to that 40% number at the end of the year. Doesn't go away. It's still there. It's still utilized for essentially the following year's operations until we get the first half tax levy dollars. And then we're at in 26. And that's is where the 2026 budget currently lays at is 646. >> Did we go to the $30 an hour for is that >> that is not >> in our 26 budget or 25 budget? >> In the 25 budget. >> 25 budget is $30 an hour. >> That was the budget. And >> yes, but they was expected to have way less hours because they're supposed to be two full-timers. So, they'd only work so many hours. They wouldn't have to respond to any daytime calls. They would only have to respond to I can't remember what the what the deal was. Was it up to you? >> But are but they aren't getting paid $30. They're getting paid. >> All of them are being paid $30. >> None of them are paid. >> One of them is being paid. Was being paid was yes. >> Correct. >> Are we still good with that 30? >> Yeah. I don't have a problem with the 30. >> Okay. The problem that I have is is the all call thing. To me, it's much more easier to to know who's scheduled on Tuesday. You show up on Tuesday no matter what. Unless you're dead. >> Sorry. >> Crude, but it's going to work. One thing I get a little bit lost on here with this spreadsheet is that we've been told that we need to move to a different model, otherwise costs are going to go up, that we can't stay the same as where we're at. But we had 61760 in the budget for wages, wage related stuff for this year, but we're showing an annualized rate of 51345. And so we haven't changed anything yet. So we're really operating continuing to operate under the old model, >> but it's costing less than what we had budgeted assuming the two full-time >> people. So, I'm not understanding where the I mean, we have to re >> you budgeted $30 an hour, didn't you? >> Um, paying them $30. >> I'm not paying them $30 an hour. No, in the annualized one, >> I'm not changed. >> Nope, you have operational, >> but your budget is $30 an hour. >> So, your uh in 26 or 25, sorry, I want to make sure. >> 25. It is $30 an hour. Yes, that's the breakdown. It was a significantly less number of hours, but yes, it was $30. hours were >> they were way reduced because we figured we'd have full-time people. We don't need to have the all paid on call system go off every time we get a call. So then we don't need to have everybody respond to a call. That was why it was reduced significantly. And I and the 158500 number comes from here and it's based on 1170 hours at 30 bucks an hour and 703 calls. I don't have the breakdown for what these numbers mean. Um, this is a better break than what we've done in the past, but I think we just took the full >> sounds that way, >> right? But it's it's just the bottom number I'm looking at. >> Yes. 158. >> There's been about 12 12 different models and >> it's the model that we had talked about >> during the budget time that got budgeted. >> Yes. >> And we are not doing that currently. and that not doing that new model was was presented as being more expensive. And I don't remember the numbers from our earlier budget sessions, but it was stated that our our costs would go up unless we went to the the two full-time firefighters model. But it doesn't seem like that's what's actually happening. >> Now, I wasn't here. I definitely feel like I'm coming in late to this book. Everyone's on chapter 10 and I'm still on chapter 1. Um, but was that because everyone had already agreed to the $30 an hour and that is why if we had all gone to $30 an hour, the model that currently exists would have been more expensive. I'm just cuz I wasn't there for those conversations. Is that why it was going to know that >> because the hours were expected to drop significantly. >> What does that have to do with the relief versus the state aid where that money was going? >> Yep. I say I think it was they were not like ex like they were exclusive. So you in order to have one you had to have the other. Correct. And so it didn't work and correct me if I'm mischaracterizing this, but it didn't work to just move everyone to $30 an hour with what we're currently doing. And so in order to get that pay increase, we had to go to the new model because they could be in parah then. And that changed the relief and those dollars and the dollars we could allocate to that. Um, and there is not budget money for everyone to be paid at $30 an hour and to do all calls and to come whenever they are. >> Okay. >> Um, >> and that and that's why it's more expensive is because we can't utilize those state dollars. Correct. Right. >> That's exactly correct. >> My question with your budget items here, and I'm trying to tread super lightly here. Um, but we're $104,000 under budget is what you said. >> That's my annualized number. That's just based on Okay. If we had the same number of Yeah. same number of calls or whatever July and then >> can you unbake that farther for me? Can you >> where the savings or where the >> No, I want this the savings theoretically should have been more than that. And so I'm wondering if we had continued with the model that we have with exactly what we were doing. Can you unbake the baked in roll that we have in there because really that savings should have beenundred and 35 40 140,000. And so really what our actuals are >> technically should have been that amount of money. Do you know what I'm saying? Because then moving forward that is no longer needed from what we've been told. And so I think that's a starting point of how much did we actually spend on this model compared to what moving to another model would be because if it is, it'll save us more money. Does it really? Well, it it amplifies what I think D's point was. >> Yeah, we can run them. We can run a scenario where it just shows the number of calls and average number of firefighters and just run a simple model of just run exactly what you're asking for is all calls and then however many firefighters are going to show up and then that's just do simple math and that's it, >> right? But that's not actuals. So, this is actuals. >> This is actuals today. Yep. >> This is actuals today. But what I'm asking for and maybe I'm not saying this correctly, so somebody help me. I don't care. What I'm asking for is what should our actuals actually have been if we had just done the paid on call model that we believed we were doing because that gives us a baseline of where we should start to compare new models to. >> You talk about today like as in 2025 now. >> As in 2025. >> Sure. >> I want you to bake unbake that $ 30ome,000. >> Mhm. So that way we know what exactly the actual should have been. >> Is it is it safe to say that when we passed 2025's budget, we thought we would be saving money over what we were currently doing. >> Correct. That's I guess what I'm trying to get at is did we save money? >> The whole point of that was to save money. >> It was to pay the So there was two there was two objectives. It was to pay the firefighters more money and to make the most efficient use of the dollars. That was what the objective was. I don't know if it was less expensive because I think anytime you have just 17 bucks an hour for a firefighter versus a full-time >> that last budget meeting it was very clearly presented to us that it would save less money >> which >> it would it would utilize the state aid dollars. Yes. I mean the tax levy impact would be less because we can take that state aid dollars that we get and we can put it towards the chief and the assistant chief's parah retirement. Can can we just agree that whatever we predicted, whatever we budgeted, >> we undersshot that by over 10%. >> Why? >> You know why? >> Well, we don't have two the two full times. You're budgeted for two full time. >> But that was supposed to save us. >> But now we lose the $110,000 worth of state aid dollars because we have to give it to the relief. Oh, are you saying because we didn't move to that model, we didn't actually realize those savings? Yes. >> I guess that's not really where I was going. I just wanted to know what our actuals were. >> And I'm fine. Yeah. Like I said, I can run the actuals and say, "Here's what the calls were. Here's how many firefighters go to the go to the calls this year, and then just do simple math and just here's what it should be." I think what your point is is that um it's the it's the position that that Payton had that you're trying to unbake, right? And that's is that true? I would like to see what the actuals, what we thought we were getting with the paid on call model would have been because that's a starting point for moving into the future because it has been said that that role is no longer needed. >> And so in this 2026 budget, if we went with strictly business asis, paid on call, that 30ome,000 would never have been paid out. >> Correct. You're still going to have to have, >> unless you want me to go to over budget every year, you're still going to have to have extra dollars. >> You're gonna have to float them. Yes. But we should float them if we have them and not spend them is what I'm trying to get at is where does that start. So in order to get a baseline of this is the paid on call model. This is what it costs. If we're looking at just costs, this is what it costs. You have to unbake a role that we didn't know existed that we paid for >> that we paid money out to because we didn't know we were paying it. We didn't know we were paying it and in the future moving forward we won't be paying it. >> So, >> so that's what I want to start at. That gives us a ground level baseline start to then look at comparing these models to dollar-wise and how much more expensive is it? and it's weighing the risk versus reward of paying $30 to the firefighters. Is it worth that increase? Because right now you've got things baked in the cake still and you haven't pulled all the ingredients out to get us a baseline of where we need to start. >> Yeah. So part of the next year's model of the numbers that you're seeing there, part of it is that stipen for a fire inspector that is that's in there. So part of your comment is that it's not in there, which it is. I want to make sure that's clear. It's in there now. I was just being explicitly noted that it's $500 a month for >> the fire inspector. Your thing to me was is that that was not part of that role. >> Um, it was not part of the role that I I'm going to leave that one to the chief cuz it's his role, not mine. >> I don't but I'm not trying to argue about it. I'm just saying that I would like to have a baseline to start at and that's all I'm asking. Where what role your >> co Henderson's referring to the um >> Jason Alaski had >> Jason Alask and Pton's ro they >> transferred to Payton. >> Yep. >> So in those roles both of them did fire inspections. They're certified to do fire inspections and then did >> is it fire inspector like one and two? Is that the deal? >> And they're one. >> They're correct. So, I don't know that this has ever been fleshed out, but that was half of your job description. So, what happened to that? Where are we at? What >> as far as doing that? >> Yep. they can be done, but we haven't been able to get to that yet because part of it is we need to enforce some of the codes and I'm not sure that like we need to bring 1306 in and 1306 is we need to make an ordinance change which we can do that but it' be specific to the areas that have water within the community. Um that hasn't been brought forward yet because it seems to be an appetite of the council that they don't want to have a lot of rules in place for the community. >> So >> I don't know what a 1306 is. Well, 1306 Scott is just No, I understand that. So 1306 is that as um facilities >> make changes to their building where there's water available, it would be specific to them. So a lot of our commercial buildings to the southwest, right? >> Those would where we would implement that. So they add it on and then we do inspections in that capacity. But the inspections have never we've done we started to do some inspections like Rain Tree Plaza needs to be inspected. Um some of those things but we've never put had an inspection program since I've been here. So we try to go out and do some of the IEPs and CUPs and those come up. Um but outside of that we're not inspecting every single day business. We would do merkantile every three years. We would do high hazards annually so forth. It depends on, you know, you guys are sold one thing and it's not possible. >> And it's not possible because >> I can't be the fire chief, the fire marshall, the the operations chief, and all that stuff and emergency management director. It just doesn't work. There's no way for me to do all of those things. As much as it's sold to you, you can look to other communities, but that's not how it's done. Every other community around us is operating with more chief officers, six val six figure salaries in order to get their operations done on a daily basis. I'm asking for line firefighters to help with fire calls and then some fire inspection so I can continue to work on. We've got 90 pages of SOPs. We need to get community or the city uh trained to include council on the national incident management system. There's lots of things that need to come in place. It can't just put together. We have a baseline emergency management plan, but we need to make it more specific to us. There's many things to do and I know you joke about it, Scott, and you and I have talked about it. We're not sitting around playing cards all day. >> And I know you're not. I'm not saying you are, but >> but the reality is is that the thing that I'm frustrated with, and I'll just be honest, is that there isn't a single council member with the exception of you that have come and ask questions. And it's like we we want to avoid the question of having conversations with me. I'm not sure why, but I can't educate everyone in an hour meeting. Well, because it's not a conversation, Gary. That's why I don't do it. >> What do you mean? When we meet, you tell us the model that you want to have and all the reasons why that's got to be the model that we got to have and repeat. It's not a conversation. >> What do you want then, David? >> What do I want? Yeah. >> I'm not a fire chief. >> Exactly. That's why I bring you the information that I bring you to educate. >> But when we challenge your numbers, your model, and the way that you want to implement it for this size community, that is that that's just goes on deaf ears. I don't feel like you hear me and so I don't I don't need to be in a conversation where it's one way. >> I've had one conversation with you since I've been here. >> And how did that go? >> It seemed to be a cordial conversation. >> That's correct. >> So that >> from my perspective, too. And what what movement have we had on the night on the item? Sorry, Paul. Um that I said were key issues for me in terms of supporting another model going forward. What progress has has occurred? What specifically are you looking for? Like >> emergency management, operating procedures, fire marshall situation, which seems to get more complicated every time we talk about it. >> Well, this is stuff that I pass on to him because I report to him. And so therefore, that stuff should be passed on to you. So there's operational standard operating procedures that are out there that I've generated 80 or 90 pages. There was no SOPs before I got here. I understand that. Have you personally done that or was that a role of someone else? Because what I was told there was a copy paste onto our letter head from Cross Lakes SOPs that you were given that they was copy pasteed on and sent out. That's what I was told. >> Yep. There's some of that because no fire department is going to recreate everything. >> Well, you shouldn't recreate everything, >> right? So, some of it was personally gone through all of it. >> Yes. They were written by me to start with and then they were disseminated out to other people to take a look at and then they're went out to the organization >> and you took their feedback and >> yes, they were given an opportunity to provide feedback. I received very little feedback and then they're implemented and signed by them. >> I think what we're looking for, at least what I'm looking for is I hear I hear that firefighters don't want to work 30 hours a month. I hear that. >> Correct. Well, the one way that you put a kibash to that is having all calls because you got probably this the same eight or 10 firefighters coming to all them calls. And this comment that was made, some choose not to. That's just not good enough for me. If you want to be a firefighter, you got to come to the call. >> Well, you're going to see, I mean, as that that graph goes from 3 to six, they're going to be making that decision more often. Sorry, this one. >> That's why that's that's why to me it makes so much sense to go to a scheduled deal on Tuesday. You know, you're working. >> Well, that's what we're that's where we're at. That's where Councilman Fish believes that that's not the model to go to. But the reality is is that we have come up with a system to utilize our dollars the best that we can from a capacity of minimizing the interruptions to our paid on call firefighters. So where they're scheduled in the stations similar to what you proposed that we discussed um that is the next step in the model. I don't care who you talk to. You can go and talk to various other people. Other communities are doing it a little bit different. Like I said that 400 calls during the day. They've supplemented or augmented their ability to run those calls with four other or five other six value six figure salaries at the chief level to run those calls. Here I'm looking at Kevin and I um along with the best one that we haven't gotten to yet, I guess, is looking at one firefighter roughly from 10 to six and then having duty cure from 6:00 to 10 and then doing some medical team stuff overnight. The reality is is that we're trying to take that scheduled system that you and I are on the same page with of they don't need to go to those, you know, they don't need to respond to every single call. The reality is what I need to know from council is what's the level of service that you want to provide to the county. Do you want to arrive in 30 minutes? Do you want to arrive in 15 minutes? That's part of it. On average response time is about should be between 6 and 8 minutes. So that would require states. >> I don't think that's changed. I think it's been the same 12 and 13 minutes. I don't think anything's changed on on call response time. >> Right. But the idea with a a duty gear model with them being staffed in the station, part of it is if you want to look at NFPA 1720 and firefighter safety is that we want to get 10 people there within 10 minutes. We're talking to structured fire now. >> Big deal. >> Um a big incident >> from a medical response. Does the stub towe need 10 people? No. That's what I'm trying to minimize utilizing those dollars and then putting them into the full-time into duty compliance. That way it minimizes it. If you look at a successful model at Seiggo is coming on board here in the next whatever's model is very similar um to what they're looking at. Ideally, we need to get to some semblance of full-time augmented with part-time staff. We're not where we were 30 years ago when I started in the fire service, even 20 years ago, where firefighters, they want to help the community, but they want to do it when they have the time to do it. And they're not necessarily all about the money, but the money helps in the capacity of $30 an hour to help them um to help them like make that decision. As Zach said, you know, we had a firefighter that was here before. He struggled with do I go to my business, do I go to the fire call, or do I spend time with my family? That's really where we're at today. And maybe it's not their business, but maybe because they're at their job. >> It's a job. Yeah. >> It's their job and then they have to go to that, >> right? They have to go to that. >> J, can I stop you for a second? Um, NFDA 1720. Are you looking at us as a rural community or are you looking at us at a different because our per capita puts us in a rural community, which would put our response time at 14 minutes, 80 minutes? >> We're more we're more suburban than we are rural. But according to their calculations, we don't fall into we fall into the rural >> so many people per square mile. >> Correct. And I did the math that I'm saying is we fall in the rural category, which puts us at an average of 14 minutes 80% of the time. >> And if you analyze our data from this year, we're pretty damn close. >> Actually, I think it was significant that I thought it was averaging about 11 and a half >> during the daytime when we have the twofold year or after that. averaging the whole works. >> Oh, the whole works. Okay. Yeah. No, I believe we are close if not making or Yeah. You know, I broke it out between daytime calls and then the fire fighters at like what our paid on call would be. >> What's the break? And I because I don't know anything about 1720. >> I don't know what it is either. >> What's the breakdown for rural to suburban? Because I'm guessing that's the two classifications. I I >> bet it goes it goes rural, urban, suburban, I believe. I'd have to look it up exactly. >> I'm trying to look it up >> only because I don't know if it's like are we close? Are we on the edge? I don't know. >> But it No, I mean, >> but that's for 30% of her calls. >> Based on going to 70% medical, 30% fire calls. That's really all that's, you know, from a >> FPA 1720 is just for fire calls. >> Yes. >> Not for medical. Just for fire calls. So the reality is is that we are trying to get to making you know work life balance and also manage it within the the city dollars that are allocated to us. There's only so many different scenarios that we can come up with. We either have all calls where we have no understanding of the number of people to your point Scott of of how many firefighters are going to respond or we move to a scheduled time frame. Um and and I guess the other part of it is is that this has to be a partnership with the relief association. the relief association only that we're able to get to where we're discussing today is because they've agreed to um forego their um money from that capacity and gets pushed into police fire. So that's where this is a partnership. It's not solely on them and it's not solely on the council. Um so at the end of the day, my question is what's the response time to the community that you would like to see? The other thing is what's the types of medicals that you like to go to? Um, you know, the fire calls are the fire calls, but the calls are going to continue to increase every year. >> Well, the types of medicals, anything that Paul can handle, that's where I would push him. >> I would I would caution you to phrase it that way. >> Well, and I don't know all the different calls. >> No, no, I know. I I No, you don't. I I would just caution you to phrase it that way, but I have two questions and then I want to piggyback on what you just said. Is care resource connections are we realizing their impact in the that call volume that we're projecting to >> of what they would reduce for next year's >> that's a cheap >> Yeah. I mean >> because when Amy came in and presented to us, she gave the example of Hopkins whose call volume she kept stagnant as her community grew. And she said 30 I have it written down 30 some year-over-year reduction in calls is what she has seen. And so I'm just wondering have we realized that and if we're paying them again very pro resource connections I think it's really great for our aging population. I just want to throw a little stab out there. But if we're not putting that in here and we're going to pay them, you know, 6,0005 whatever dollars for their services, we should be figuring that in. If we really are willing to pay that money out and think that's a good use of taxpayer money, then it should be bringing something back to us, which means we should be realizing that in our calls we're projecting and that we are budgeting for. And I think the difficulty with that is and I don't disagree with what you're saying is that it's difficult kind of like the we're going to have standby time then have $30 an hour for people to go on calls because what happens is is we might fix that one person that calls six, seven, eight times, but then we might get a new person that calls six or eight times. So really to try to figure out what that looks like, >> I think there from year to year as our calls continue to increase, >> it's that really big moving target of trying to figure that out. So there's the value of us not going back to that same person multiple times, but then like I said, when we get the new person that calls multiple times and we're able to get them resources, then that gives us that ability to keep some semblance of those calls down. We're not going back to them. The problem is is again is that moving targets kind of like how many firefighters are going to show up type thing. >> How do other cities quantify that? Because I know she works all over Minnesota and North Dakota. like how are they budgeting for that? Have we >> I don't know other communities she works. I know she works with St. Louis Park and Hopkins, but those are established. I know that's the only two I know. I know she works on >> she's everywhere. >> Sure. I just care resource connection is literally everywhere and now into North Dakota. So I'm just saying that I'm wondering if is there a way that >> you know we have connections friends how we could ask how do they budget around that? Um, and then the second thing to go back to your Thanksgiving didn't mean to hijack your question. I think for me personally, it would be helpful for you, Gary, because you are our chief and our, you know, subject matter expert to go through the calls that we go on, all of the like the code, whatever they come out as, and rank them. It's a risk ranking at that point. it's these are high-risisk calls critical that we need to be on and I know it's going to be very difficult. Um, but then at least that would let us know that what's on the bottom of the list may be areas where even temporarily we can say we're not going to these >> Susie that called. >> Well, not even Susie, but this typically is this kind of call and we're no longer going to respond to that. And I understand that that's like not what everybody wants to hear. But at a certain point, we do one of two things. is either we move to this model and we pay a bunch of money for full-time that we may or may not actually need. Sorry, chief. Or we start to reduce call volume because all of the other communities like listen fire community is very small. They reach out. They ask questions. Hey, we're on this training with you. What's going on? Blah blah blah blah. Their suggestion has all been call reduction. >> And there's some of that. Uh but here's just an example to your point. these and I can get send this out to council but when somebody calls 911 >> I don't know there's two and a eighth pages of call types >> and then there is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 pages of what the definition is. So for instance uh let's just use if they've got a medical >> we can use the hope unknown today. >> Yeah the hope unknown. And I'm not saying you're they're not going to get it right every time. And I'm not saying that one in pain or one ill isn't going to be a heart call. Like I'm not saying that whatsoever. Like that is going to happen. And it's not >> I think saying that gets a bad rap that we're just leaving the citizens of Dayton out there hanging. Or at least that's how I felt that that statement has been perceived. But I think that at a certain point we have to decide like like you said the amount of service that we are okay or we want to give the citizens. But also, I don't know that I'm willing to go to a model for us to go on eight stubbed toe calls >> or or like to help unknown today. Let's use that as an example. You are there faster than he is there no matter what. >> Not always. >> Not always. >> Really? >> If we're tied up on something, we wouldn't be there. >> Both cars are tied up. >> Uh if you're on a domestic, it's a twocar call and alarm's a two car. >> Domestic. But how many of those do you have a year? [Music] I'd have to look at my stats. We're >> I >> I don't know from playing the the worst case scenario game of this is on fire, that's on fire, >> but you went to that call today, right? >> You you responded to that call. >> And did you go? >> I was on vacation. >> He didn't go first. >> Fire department did. >> So, how much sooner were you there before the fire department was there? >> It took the fire department 15 minutes to arrive on scene. And by then you already know that what the situation is, don't you? Or not. >> Today we did. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, not saying that's going to happen all the time, >> but if we show up and it's the patient that we had today and it's one or two officers on duty, you have two officers there with a critical patient for 20 minutes until North gets there trying to land air care um and trying to deal with the ambulance. the ambulance by then you can call him if you if he's needed >> but then usually the ambulance by the time we called him >> it would be a back out >> so >> well >> that's the point of it really depends on what's the level of service that you want to provide >> that's that's how I would do it I mean >> there's no way anybody's going to get it perfect if if you start manipulating calls the council's going to have to be aware that there's going to be some calls that we're going in quotes, I'm going to call it miss because there's just no way to do it. Right now, we're we're making all calls. >> And so, the council has to be aware that if we adjust call types, which is totally fine and within the council discretion to do, there is risk on on not not necessarily risk like on the city council, but knowing that we may not be able to provide a level of service that a patient may need >> based on a and that just the council has to be aware of that. I just want to make sure it's known. You know, that's >> from my perspective. I want to make sure you guys are aware of that. That's >> today though. It takes that seven back down to three. >> Seven down to three. >> The the anxiety level the >> Oh, it would take You're talking Yeah, you're talking. >> So, we know >> I mean we Yep. >> We don't put a police station on every corner. There's a trade-off. >> Exactly. Yep. And that's what that's some cities do. >> There are >> No, we're not. >> There are some cities that >> So, we're not the only city that wouldn't be running those calls either. I think that that's the thing too is like we're not the only city that would decide we're not we're going on every single call >> and that's fine. >> Can I those lists have to be I mean this this exercise has already been done with the other cities. >> Correct. >> Most of the time they're bigger or I would say bigger as in they have either more people or whatever. I mean no Champlain doesn't go on every call. April Grove I'm guessing doesn't go on. They do uh extrication CPR needed and it doesn't look like another community that's about our size. Like Corker doesn't have their own fire department. Corker doesn't have their own fire department. >> But West Metro >> West Metro Fire Department goes on pretty much. >> Yeah, but they go on every call, don't they, Mel? Yeah. >> But why would the distribution be any different? Like an Oka Champlain say >> it would just be Yeah, probably just a different ratio. >> Oka Champlain is running more and more medicals over time. are running a duty crew from 5 I think 5 to 10 at night Monday through Friday. >> Yeah, they they do run them at night. >> So my question to the council is because this all boils down it boils down to operations. I understand that. But it boils down to me with the budget and that's why we're having this conversation today because I need to know what to put in for budget numbers. I could put any number down on the piece of paper you want to see, but there's implications of that of what what can we do when we may handcuff ourselves from that aspect. So I'm fine with running a different scenario. I just need direction from the council tonight of what you want to see. I'm happy to put anything down if you favor. We can do it right now, too, in the in the council chambers here. >> Well, I don't like I don't like the 7 to 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. all call thing to me. You've you've we've got four or five guys that are here on on just about all day calls. >> I think >> it just depends. I guess >> we we get >> I know John I know John Kudson goes on a lot of day calls, but but he's very he can we do have, you know, there are people that >> I think there are certain firefighters that Yes. That depends on what's going on with their job. >> Right. >> Right. So, >> so to me, if you pick >> five six guys, >> go ahead. Sarah's having >> five or six guys and that's yours. >> I mean, 6 or even if it's 0.1 calls. I mean, between you and Kevin, I mean, one of you guys should be able to go, but you want two in the truck, right? Is that what I >> We need at least We need to have at least two to go. Okay. >> I mean, because if they can't go, then we need to have two. Yeah, I will say that I've I've seen Kevin or Garrett run on a call at times. I mean, we've been in meetings and they're like, I got to go. So, we're out of here. >> Whether it's those two or just one of them takes off, they're out of the truck. So, >> now Sarah wants to talk. >> So, again, go ahead. >> I'm still on chapter one of this book. Um, and in chapter one, it sounds to me like we've got two issues, which is the budget for the city and how much money we have for the fire department. >> Yep. And the other issue is that our current model is burning our firefighters out. Like what regardless whatever, but like there's a there's a stress level on our current firefighters. Is that fair to say that those are the two underlying big issues that there's money and our current model is stressing people out? >> I think it depends on which way you look at it. >> Okay. >> The second. >> Okay. So, some of the firefighters are not stressed out about >> No, I'm not saying that. I just They're penalized for every call. So whether you're at your full-time job or not, you still need to make the percentage of the calls. Instead of it being, >> okay, >> five o'lock on, this is your calls. Because if you do the numbers with that and they wanted to make their 25% of all of the calls, it's really making 60some percent of the calls that come out when you're done with your regular job. >> Actually, yeah, it's amplified because there's not as many calls, right? And that's not a limit to me. So again, if we removed, you're penalized for 7 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. whenever I'm not sure what hours we work, but when we're there, >> um, and then you're only responsible, if you will, for 6 to 7 a.m. the next morning, your 25% goes way down. >> But our but our current model is stressful. like as it's laid out is stressful for >> it's stressful because you may only get a couple of calls and at that time you have to make every one of them to make your numbers. So I guess what I'm saying to you is though it's stressful. Yeah. Because it's not set or it was at one point in January 13 calls for the whole month gives you more predictability. I understand that. And I'm saying like I guess for me if you did the duty crew in the evening that sounds great. Medical teams going back to I don't like medical teams. uh response teams overnight. Great. That was also gave predictability. I'm just not there with a full-time firefighter during the day. Sorry, I didn't mean to drop >> I think the two bottom line things are what's now there's multiple factors that go into the stress level which to your point Stephanie like there's other things like oh there's percentage of calls >> to answer your question without scheduling. >> That's what I'm saying. Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack your thing, but I think it's all in how you are classifying what your percentage is because yes, there's an added stress to I'm penalized for the five calls that came out and I couldn't make a single one of them cuz I was at my 40-hour week job. I got to make every call that comes out to know that I'm going to make my number. So, >> yeah, I think your point is your two things are exactly what goes into that second one is there's a lot there's a lot of reasons. >> I just wanted to make it clear that it's not just when you're not at your full-time job, you're penalized for every call. Yep. Yep. Penalized. Got it. Um, so with that in mind, it also sounds like right now we have two full-time people who are here during the day >> who if we didn't have any other duties, we could go to the calls and everything be fine. The problem is you problem. It's not really problem, but there are other jobs to do that have to get done. And so, and I don't I I I'm trying to not stir a pot, but like I just would like to get the facts out here. The reality is um we have codes and ordinances that we have a hard time actually um managing and make like what's the word I want to use um going out and not implementing enforcing thank you um and so when to your point earlier chief that the city council doesn't like to have codes it's not that we don't like to have codes but we set ourselves up when we have codes that we physically cannot enforce but yet we have them on the books. That creates that's that that's problematic. We can't have uninforcable codes. Um, but there's two kinds of uninforcable codes. There's ones that like legitimately are uninforceable because like we don't have the legal right to go on your property and look at something, so like we can't really enforce it. And then there's uninforceable because we don't have the staff to enforce it. Like those are two different things to me. Um, and I I think also then we have to look at which of those codes are also about like life and death versus which of the codes are you annoy your neighbor because the you know the junk in your backyard which is annoying to your neighbor issue is different than a building burning down and people have died, right? And so like if we're talking about we have some staffing issues and that is why some of our codes have not been enforced to the level that they should be. I think all of city council would agree and I don't mean to speak for you but things that are life and death we're okay being enforcable codes I would assume. Um but like you have junk in your backyard. That's a different like those are two is it fair to say that those are two different things for everybody? Um, and so if we need a third full-time person, and we have basically been kind of having an almost third full-time person for about two to threeish years now. Um, it sounds like that already happened and the budgets were fine. And so to me, it doesn't feel like adding a third full-time person more officially with official duties would actually affect the budget all that much because that's kind of pretty much what has been happening. Um, so am I not is that not an accurate reflection of what's been going on? >> Isn't the model with the one full-time firefighter still has this stipen for a fire inspector? >> We we could remove that. I would think that's what that full-time firefighter would do because >> I try to keep it consistent across each. >> I want to pause for a minute. Not necessarily because there's certain credentials that need to go with that. >> Okay. >> So, there's specific credentials if you want to take those away from um Metro West, they need to have certain credentials and the credentials, I do not possess those. Nobody in the department does. >> Mark Luck does. But um we have uh I guess my point was we have >> we have basically had an almost third full-time firefighter >> for a while 30 hours a week. No. >> Okay. uh >> they were part-time which means there were no benefits and they were part >> and no job description to actually quantify what was being done because on one side we're being told no inspections >> on the other side it was inspection and so it's hard to know what exactly was happening and to go back now I don't >> yeah I don't know what that would be >> otherwise I have another question about the stipen for the fire inspectction ctor that 12 hours I'm guessing is a monthly $500. That's what the >> I'm assuming how many like what is the there's no job descriptions what we were given for things. So like for $500 are they expected to do how many hours of work is is it based on hours? Is it based on the number of inspections they do? Is it you did one inspection this month we're still going to give you $500 and you did three next month you're still you know what I mean? What is >> it depends on the need based upon what Metro West needs if we take that from Metro West in some capacity. So it depends on what's coming in from commercial perspective. You know if we need a sprinkler review um that's you know a different set of credentials. So it kind of depends on it's going to eb and flow in what's there. So hence the stipen we I think it's roughly 15 to 18 hours roughly a month. They're probably not necessarily going to necessarily hit that but then it's kind of one of those things of okay they're on staff and they can help with >> Yeah. So from my perspective and what and what I put in the thing is it's it's a $500 salary for the month. So if you're doing fire inspection work, whether that's a fire inspection of the business or you're doing plan review or you're able to do whatever that are needed inspections. I don't know what they are. I'm not a fire inspector. I couldn't tell you. Whatever is done in there, it's a $500 salaried a month. It's just something similar. I've seen other communities that I've worked in is that they have a salaried amount. whether it's a training officer or whatever you're the training officer, you get X dollars per month whether you do one training or zero trainings or five trainings. I I use that as an example just because wondering how then do you keep that person from getting burned out, right? Like if here's your $500, but you've got five inspections to do this month and you're running ragged and we're going to run into the same thing we had when uh Greg Cruz was in the position where he was taking PTO to come and do inspections and then he got completely burned out. cubes came in and they said absolutely not amount. So I'm just wondering how do we keep that from happening and if you know again we're want to reduce stress we want to you know make them the firefighters have work life balance I wonder are we setting that role up for failure if >> Sure. >> I want to know what the fulltime firefighters doing when they're not at fires because what is it 6 a day >> during the day >> during the daytime 7 a.m. to 5. >> Yeah. So what is the full-time firefighter doing? So there's setting there's lots of things that need to do for training for management of EMS stuff with the office emergency medical services board. Um we need to set up for trainings. Um the running calls uh they're doing maintenance and so forth. >> Are we going >> we should be getting rid of that maintenance. >> So if you go to the full-time model, my understanding is that it goes away from the maintenance. Correct. Yeah. You no more maintenance. maintenance from the perspective of we're saving dollars. Um, we've utilized Kevin's skills and his ability as assistant chief to fix some things that would have cost us three or four times that within if we sent it to EAM or had EAM come out here >> um in that capacity. So, there's lots of things and I think that's the the difficult thing for me and no different than Zach has asked the question. It's hard to articulate what that is every day, but it it es and it flows, you know. >> So, on on the inspection thing, why is it that you and you or Kevin can't be the inspector? >> We can go out and conduct inspections in that capacity from the fire code. Okay. But we need to set that up. There needs to be a model put in place. What's the council going to support from an enforcement perspective, from a fine perspective? Lots of things come into place. >> Why is that any different than what we have been doing? We haven't been I don't think there's been many inspections going on. >> There's link based on it. It's been complete based because that's how my understanding the council run. >> So why would that So if we left that alone, >> we don't even need one if we're doing >> not doing annual inspections and >> this position. What we'd look to do is we'd like to try to augment this with Metro West's review of we'd like to have somebody >> So this would not be what they're doing. >> It would be additional. >> Yeah, it would. Well, the idea from my understanding from what the chief's explained to me is that it would help us whether that person is today trained or in the future we can train somebody because I'm all about training our people. I think that is a very good quality to have. Um that we should be able to have somebody to help offset Metro West in their review. This would have then been offset the whole maybe we could have caught the MTL issue that we had just recently. >> Why? Because we would have had somebody on staff been doing plan review instead of having somebody on a third party doing plan review. But how are you going to get that person to stick around? We've done this twice. We had someone in disagree. And then they leave us and this is a hell of a lot less money than what we were just paying for Metro. >> I don't know if they do. I don't know that answer. I can get that correctly if you want. >> I just whenever I disagree. I agree with you. >> Pull stuff in house. I always question that >> if you're actually saving >> the value of it. Yeah. I don't I don't know how many hours it I'd have to like I'd have to ask Metro West how many hours they do on fire reviews. I I don't know that answer off the top of my head. >> I could tell you that they do the sheet that we get is this thick and I can't review everything they do. There's no way. Um >> I get that, but I I just doing stuff in house is >> So if we removed that, >> right? Is that where you're at? If >> we removed it at 7,500 bucks. Yep. It's on every The only reason I kept it there is so it was consistent across every single one. That's the one I appreciate >> and that's why I left it there. >> Doesn't say that it's needed if it's on one model or the other, but just for >> Well, it just seems like wouldn't the full-time firefighter do that then? >> Could that be their job because they need >> because they might be gone six months from now? I mean, makes no sense to have a park. >> Well, they would need to have a vehicle, right, to go and be able to do inspections or >> we can try to implement some of the vehicle that we have. >> Yeah. to do that. Um, but to your question, Sarah, um, they need to have different credentials. So, we can hire that firefighter um, if we want to make sure that they have, um, plan review experience. So, that's a different level that has to be signed off by the state of Minnesota. So, um, we have one firefighter that just received that within the last probably three or four months. That happens to be on the department. So, like we could hire a full-time firefighter and and put in their job description that that like because when my husband got his job, >> he they wanted two trainings and he had one but not the other. And so, the understanding was he had one year to complete that training to keep the job otherwise whatever. >> And we did the same thing for the chief. When the chief got the job, we had fire inspector one in there as a requirement. Chief didn't have the fire inspector one as the time of him getting the job. We said, "You have one year to get it done." Yeah. Chief got it done in one year. So, it would be possible for this full-time firefighter to do a similar thing. Be like, we you have one year to get this training and then they could take on the in whatever this stipen for fire inspection could roll itself into that job. >> We just roll it into that. >> That's my question. I mean, and I understand that $7,500 is not is what is going to make or break our budget. But, um I'm just trying to wrap my head around what that good use of. Um, so, uh, but I just again looking at all this my this the one full-time firefighter with a >> go back to go back. Sorry. >> That's fine. >> Do you want this one or do you want the >> the one that had that one? >> Um, >> cuz that still had the scheduled, right? for >> so this position would run for if you have a full-time firefighter run 10 to 6 at night and then we would have um a firefighter a duty crew dut schedule which would address some of the issue of like they're no longer responsible to go to the daytime calls so that's not being held against them and they are being like to Scott's here's your day right like make sure you're free this night and if your kid has a game find a different firefighter and swap right >> how many hours are working a week with this >> uh seven hours. >> Which part? >> Uh your what was your paid on call? >> Um so what we've done still with this model is we've maintained that 20 hours a month >> that includes trainings. >> That includes trainings >> and that's enough to put us into PAR >> from my understanding. So I have a call. I wanted to make sure that was I called Para. I have waiting for a follow-up and that was I was going to call him today and I didn't get around to it. So because I needed to call PA. >> I did. >> Great. If you have a contact for me, I'm happy to call them cuz I have a contact and they have not gotten back to me in two weeks. So, >> I got bounced around a little bit, but I got you and they gave me the handbook which lays out all of the different we what resolution we need to pass. They have >> it's been passed. >> We passed the resolution already. That was at the end of December. >> Yeah. So, they they lay it all out, >> but I was trying to figure out that what is considered scheduled time was by question. >> They said there was nothing in there for schedule time. Okay. that it was more about the dollar amount than the needing to make more than $425. >> So, yeah, that would then be an incorporation from that portion of things that you got information on, which I'm glad you did cuz I didn't get that um yet. I'm hoping that they call me back, but they didn't. And then on top of the the fire relief then dissolving as well because if the fire relief's involved, they basically get first right of refusal. I'm going to call it in quotes for the state aid dollars because it's going towards firefighters retirement. >> Yep. So that's part of the aspect as well. We got to make sure that the council's aware of that. We have to have the fire relief on board too to get rid of the fire relief so that that state dollars can be put towards retirement of the chief, the assistant chief, and also all firefighters when they move. >> So from everything I'm hearing, it sounds like this model is an affordable model that reduces the stress on our firefighters. So, I don't understand why this model is not this this one full-time with the duty crew in the evenings and all calls on Saturdays. Why? What's wrong with this? I I don't think I think the baseline has to be reducing call volume. I don't know that we know where where we're going to be at with anything, which I I suspect our response ratio is going to go up because your stress level is going to drop. So your concerns are going to continue to increase though. >> Sure. But it's going to cut in half. >> Not necessarily based on what statistics? >> Uh the ones that you guys gave us from the other fire departments >> because we continue to increase in calls. Yeah. >> We have a when we have a staffed firefighter staff station, I don't have to call for other people to come in at the end of the day. >> Well, sure. We could all we Okay. Well, it depends on what it goes back to the level of service that you want to provide. Yep. >> If you That's what it comes down to. I can, you know, I can go through here as council member Henderson requested to go through and determine what I believe um would be considered a call that we don't need to go to. Um >> I asked for a ranking. >> Yep. We can do >> a risk ranking. >> And what do you want to base that risk on? of what you believe is critical because you are a subject matter expert. So, I'm leaning on you and I'd like you to help me along here to understand >> the critical calls that we maybe even take this years, all the ones that we went on and we were called out to and rank them because I do believe that there's some room in there to still adequately meet the expectations of the citizens and removing some of the calls that don't warrant 12 people showing up to at 2 o'clock in the morning >> or 10 o'clock at night, >> whatever time I just pulled that out of my butt. But whatever time it is, but I also going back to Sarah's question. I don't, this is my personal opinion based on the analysis that I did that you have not seen. I do not believe that our call volume even now warrants another full-time person being at the station, okay? All day long. I'm not saying that next year I won't feel differently, but at this moment looking at the calls from actual actuals for this year until June, I believe that at this point we could cover them with what we have and that's based on the analysis based on my not as high ranking experience. But having said that, I do not disagree that having some sort of a duty crew gives predictability, which is again one of those what's the problem statement, one of those key things there. And I would very much like to look at what that would look like. >> Okay. So basically having our two already existing full-time fire employees, chief and assistant chief basically handling most of the calls from the daytime working hours and then a duty crew. So kind of like Scott's model in some way. Not that it's your model, but that first one we looked at. >> Yeah, >> that and even though on paper that looks like it's more expensive, we're thinking that's not actually more expensive. >> I don't know if it is or not. I >> scenario that we have the problem that we have. >> None of those scenarios are >> solve projections. So you don't know what's pepper what's right for you. >> And again, if we do go down the road of like a risk ranking, if you will, of those and we say, you know what, for this next year, we're not we're going to take these ones off to figure out what we're doing and we find that, you know, we're adequately serving the citizens, things are going well, then that's wonderful. If we say, "Nope, we want to add these back on." And I understand the budget is a little bit different. >> So the one thing I want to make sure is I need to have a budget number so they have for the next council meeting. And again, we don't have to pass the next council meeting, but I prefer to if we can. I need to know a number to put in there for the budget for dollars or what you guys need for followup for information on what you need. And from what I understand right now, it's the risk ranking of the call types. That's what I have so far. And that's all I have. >> 360 is my number. >> 360 total. Like, so if I uh I'll go I'll go back here. I'm gonna use the number the bottom number total 360. That's your number. that line over on >> far right bottom right corner is >> 351 but what I don't know is we've been hammered with this full time we got to have full time I don't know if any of these numbers are accurate just so that number is lower I don't know that answer >> it's a yeah I'll tell you right now it's a total you can throw them in >> as best you can because >> it's more confusing because a different number of total service hours is used on every one of >> every one of them >> total service hours what do you mean so because there's a full time >> add up that first column from the 12, the 4,0004, and so on down to the bottom, you'll get a total number of hours. Right? If you go to the next model, you'll get a different number. You'll go to the next model, you'll get a different number again. >> So, I it's hard to say that we're comparing apples to apples here. >> And I can understand there's, you know, there's going to be some variation because there's some things you don't do in one model and versus another. >> Yeah. But there's a like a 4500 hour swing between the highest and the lowest. Yep. >> And it makes me hard to feel like I'm looking at actual numbers. >> So the reason why you're seeing that difference in the number of hours is because if we don't have a full-timer here or two or whatever, I have to put a 4.4 average number for number of firefighters are going to show up to a call. So the one call that I normally have one hour on and model whatever. >> Is that based on actuals or is that >> So the actuals are 6.6 Six total >> for all hours. Correct. You break it out. It's broken out. Yeah, it's broken out from the chief ran it for me. 7 to 4:30, 4:30 to 10 and >> Okay. Just over 7. >> Oh, yeah. 10 to 7. 5.4 was the lowest. That's 10 to 7 in the morning. So, I use 4.4. And again, that's why you're seeing a difference in hours is because I have to expect that 4.4 firefighters are going to show up for one call when a full-timer might only call for one call. If that makes sense. The biggest problem I have with the whole thing, and >> we've seen probably 12 different scenarios on this whole thing. >> I can I can run you 50 more if you really want me to, >> but none of them are realistic. And what what puzzles me is the whole $30,000 that's happened for the last two two and a half years. >> Just since January? >> No, it's been Jason last year was not paid the same dollar amount. >> Regardless, the hours are the same. hours were the same, but your dollar per hour is 1.7 times what he was making. So, it's not the same. >> Part of what I'm where I'm going with that is >> continue. Sorry. >> Whether or not I didn't know it was happening, number one, and to approve a budget, you can't tell me that you know you have 30 or $40,000 extra in your budget at the beginning of the year. >> It's it's a it's a swag. It's scientific. you know what guess the end of the day I mean and looking at it and trying to get you know David wants a lot of things done it doesn't come just because I'm one person can get everything done because I can't do it >> there's not person there's two of you here >> well there is but there's many things to do and that's the part that the council does not understand if you want to go and educate yourself >> I haven't what they are though >> but go and talk to other organizations >> so we're we're off task to know right? Like it would be nice to know the things like that are beyond what you feel like you're able to accomplish because that's how we are able to say this position is warranted, right? Like so if you need an admin that's one of those things where if you come forward and say these are the duties that I need to be have done and I need X Y and Z. So, >> but we have no way to quantify that and that's >> we've covered in the the so and I've said this example numerous times between Jason Alaski and Payton they we implemented our new records management system to include all inventory items within the city everything got labeled everything got implemented in and we had to set up the records management system so that was a transition that started in uh October Novemberish time frame and we need to get that done by the end of the year so that was being done with Jason Alaski before he left and it was picked up by Payton when she started and then it continued from there. Then we implemented the off like I said in her resignation today um putting together internal training so we can manage our training as far as the EMSRB stuff so that we're not have to go out so firefighters aren't having to go out and do their training outside of the organization where it's roughly costing us you know I don't know $1,200 or whatever it is for them to certify outside the city were able to do those hours internally. So there's lots of things and finite things that come into play outside of, you know, emergency management. You know, we're we're we're behind in emergency management. We've been there's no we have a base plan from Henick County. The problem is I don't we don't have staff that are trained either right now. They are working on NIMS 700 throughout the the city. So I mean we're over our time. Uh but you know there's lots of things that can be discussed. >> Yeah. I one last thing and then I will leave you alone. I'm just wondering why back in January, February, March, April, May, June, July that couldn't have just been said because we could have started this budget season going, "Okay, these are the things that this role is doing instead of being told we can't know or you're too deep or blah blah blah blah." I can't help you unless I know where you need the help. >> I don't know. No one I guess I'm What's the I mean no one has asked the question. >> I asked it in our other work sessions. I've asked you for seven eight months you're listen we don't have to get into it. A lot of people have asked and until this day right here right now at this table you were unable to say what that role was even doing. Not even one thing other than admin work. And so what I'm getting from this conversation and our previous conversations is that I don't actually know what that full-time firefighter would be doing. I don't actually know what that inspector would be doing and giving no job descriptions, even a tentative this is the kinds of things that they would be doing. I am a hard no on adding any sort of stipen for an inspector and a hard no on any full-time fire. I would love to see a scenario that has more of that duty crew standby for the current paid on call moving to a more scheduled shift. Um 100% behind all of that, but that's just where I'm standing based on not feeling like there's transparency in any of our discussions. And I will get off my soap box. >> What did you say we were at for on um for predicting what our actuals would be at the end of this >> for 2025. >> So it's somewhere between 639 and 662. Again, I could be way off. I just took the linear results that were on this sheet that were given to you guys in the past. >> I'm talking about dollars. >> Oh, dollars. >> Budget >> because you're you're sitting where there's 350 360. I mean, we can get it done for that. We already know we can. And I think that it's probably baked a little bit high. >> Yeah. >> I mean 350 you can get it done >> right now in the when the budget's more than that. I mean in the budget >> that's not counting his salary though. That's just >> the budget total is 646, >> right? >> That did not that those numbers did not include the chiefs or the current Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Chief or assistant chief. 646 is the current number that's in the budget today >> for 2026. And that includes both its chief, assistant chief. And >> you're predicting that'll come out at 5 something. >> Uh, no, that's this year's budget. 2025. 2026 is what I'm referring to. >> No. >> So, what do you want? Sorry. >> 25. >> So, when you say, >> you said there was going to like 100k, sorry. For the current 2025. So, when you say current budget, we're working on the 26 budget. So, when you say current to me, I'm in 26. I'm >> stand. >> So, in 2025's budget, it's 617,000. I'm projecting it to be at 513 and I'm including $110,000 of state aid going to the fire relief in 2025 in 26 numbers. So currently it's 617 I'm projecting or I'm currently in the budget I have 646. How that gets divvied up I don't really care but 646 646 even is what I have in this year's budget for salaries. Does that include >> that includes you? Does not include the relief dollars? No. >> So the relief dollars go back come to the city or the city come to the city. >> Okay. >> So what is that if you take Kevin and Gary out of it? >> That's because that's that number, right? >> Yes, it would be. Sorry, it's the >> whichever >> I used this one when I made the one that you're using. >> Yes, this is the one that I used. >> 360 plus. >> Yeah, 360. And then the difference is 646 is excuse me, salary and benefits for both Gary and Kevin. And Scott, you're saying you're 350 to 360 all in or just >> No, you gota >> with that on top. That's what I'm asking. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So either So and I figured this would be the case because that's kind of where I'm at. It's either going to be one full-time if anything or if it's or it's going to >> be the crew some sort of standby duty crew model, whatever you want to call it. You can pick a name, whatever you want to call it. >> For me, the uh the full-time guy. I mean, you're going to spend 80 85,000 a year on that for that 6 calls per day. >> Well, they're there longer. That's just 7 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. So, you have to move it. And there is a higher percentage of calls that come out between 5 to 6, whatever. >> I mean, I we could totally look at what the number actually is if you'd like. >> And we can still change this. It doesn't mean it can't like change. I just have to have an ability to adjust after September. And again, we don't have to approve on the 9th, but if we can have another work session or a discussion, you want to have another one, I >> What does it, >> and I know we have we're out. >> Here's a number like 360 for this portion of the budget. >> What does that end up looking like for the total increase in the fire department budget over 2025? Because ultimately we're we're trying to get to an 8% or less levy increase. >> Yep. >> So >> these line items are only one part of that. >> Yes. Fire department is only one part of that. Obviously there's lots of departments in there. So yes and other portions with the fire truck which is what Sarah mentioned. >> Right. But we're since we're spending this time on the fire department, >> we'd like to know what the using that 360 number looks like when you add all of the rest of the things in and compare it to last year. What is that increase? >> Sure. >> Decrease. >> Do that. >> Do you want me to run a scenario? I know that Stephanie had mentioned earlier in the work session about running a scenario for what does it look like today if you unbake the cake and get it to baseline today or does that I know that you mentioned that 70. >> I think for me it' be a comparison of what we actually like where we it gives me a baseline I guess is my it doesn't necessarily matter. I mean, I can unbake it myself, too. >> You unbake it yourself because you need to pull out that person for the calls that they ran >> um as well. So, again, it's a little bit more needs to be more fine-tuned in that capacity because they're running calls and they're doing work. So, >> at the same dollar amount per hour. >> Correct. Yes. >> So, I could run that. Not hear any opposition. So, I'm going to go with Yes. Run that. Okay. Yes. >> I just want to make sure I'm getting the council what they're looking for. >> No, I I hear you. I was sitting a little uneasy after. Okay. Okay. Is it possible to before we decide on a full-time or inspector to have some sort of >> Oh, this is You're not approving anything tonight. >> No, no, no, no. I'm not saying that. Um would it be possible to have some sort of job description layout not a perfect this is you know and like what percentage like what is an essential what is like a marginal like this is 10% of their time this is whatever so that way we can really quantify like what are we actually getting for that full-time position because to Scott's point paying it to go to point6 calls is not worth it but if they're doing a whole bunch of other things it might be >> I think that's something that most certainly can be given the reason why I didn't have it today is because I didn't want to provide this information or provide have the chief spend a bunch time and me spend a bunch of time reviewing these things and you go absolutely not we absolutely hate that now we've just wasted you know two three hours of time and again two three hours of time is two three hours of time for me I'd rather not spend that time putting together a job description for you guys to go yeah we hate that makes no sense so to your point Stephanie I'd love to I I would never put something learning from past experience I would ever put something in front of you and say hey why don't you approve this thing and then not give job descriptions >> no I appreciate I understand it's hard to get behind it at this point if that's what we're looking at not knowing and I suspect that $64,000 isn't going to be enough to cover everything that we would want that person to do >> compared to other cities what they were willing to pay. >> It would be nice to know and then we could do >> some you know looking at other cities and what those >> Can I one quick question? So, you want them to have the skill set of being able to do plan review or do you just want them to be fire marshal? >> Inspector, you mean >> inspector? Inspector one. >> What's I guess I don't know enough about what that means. Like, cuz you have stipen for fire inspector and that's $500. Doesn't seem like a very complicated job. I mean, when I'm looking at that salary, right? Like, here's $500. Go do this. I don't I don't think it's enough to get the credentials of what you're looking for as far as being able to do plan review and all that. I don't think you're someone >> and that's you be hardressed to find somebody >> and that's why it's not making sense to me because it says fire inspector but they're going to get paid $500 like that doesn't and so I need to know like like that's why at that I'm like well then why can't the full-time firefighter do it if it's just that you know $6,000. Um, so but but then clearly obviously then I'm being told on their hand, no, no, no, it's way bigger than that. You're not. So it's like, well then those two things don't. >> So yeah. So the reason why we didn't put fire marshall in there or plan viewer or whatever you want to call it cuz I don't want >> this is from my direction. I don't want to pigeon hole it to be, you know, only certain number of people. I would like to see more people go for it so we can train more people in on the department. That was my goal for it. So if you want to say it is the job rolls bad, sure you can point to me and say, "Yeah, you did the bad job roll." because I want to be more than just one person. I want to be >> who's the best candidate for >> different kinds of fire inspectors. There's different levels of them. And then there's fire marshall and that's a different thing also. >> Okay. And I don't know enough about any of those things to be able to know what's realistic in so >> and a plan review is going to spend $12,000 just on MTO. >> All right. Sure. Sure. We have I have some items we can get second.