The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.i. Fire Department Pay�ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: March 19, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: Fire Department Pay AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed pay schedule; packet information from March 13th work APPROVED BY: session RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve an increase in pay for firefighters from $6 per call to $10 per call and an increase in officer stipends of approximately 10% as shown on the attached proposal, retroactive to January 1, 2013 BACKGROUND The Council has been reviewing Fire Department compensation nearly two years, and more specifically a proposed increase in 2013 over the past two months. Rosemount, like a number of other cities, is trying to recruit and retain paid -on -call firefighters. Our goal for a number of years has been 50 paid -on -call firefighters, but this goal has never been achieved despite ongoing recruiting efforts. Even with one of the highest fire pension benefits in the area, overall firefighter compensation continues to lag compared with both neighboring cities and cities throughout the metro area. Even with the proposed increases, Rosemount will not exceed the overall compensation of most area cities that we have surveyed. Officers receive stipends in addition to their pay for responding to calls. The largest stipend is for the Chief at $9,300 per year. These stipends have not been adjusted since 2006. Rosemount continues to have one of the lowest cost Fire Departments on a per capita basis in Minnesota. DISCUSSION In order to aid both recruiting and retention as well as more closely match compensation levels for other area departments, the Fire Department and staff have recommended an increase in firefighter pay from $6 per call to $10 per call. In addition, stipends for the officers are recommended to increase about 10% with some minor variations. At the March 13`h work session, the Council directed that these proposals be placed on this agenda for action. If approved, they would be retroactive to January 1, 2013. Since the Fire Department is paid quarterly, action at this meeting would be timely for the first quarter fire department payroll. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached proposal for Fire Department pay increases to be effective as of January 1, 2013. V (D < C 0) cc 0 c < u E CD 0 0 (D 0) :3 0 4� 2 a) co -0 c -D O CD L) CM c LU L- < C: tp w cu CL :3 A CL Lu 0) 5 0 0 m U- (n U) U- U) 0 CL co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 C) r- 0 0 N 0 N M w N w m N 0 LO (0 r-- 609 619, 61-11 ci cf� L6 61). 6p#- 6M9- � 64 6pt. 60!� N co 0 69 69 r —C) 0 c) —0 —Lo- —a -C 0 CD U') LO C> 0 1— 0 C) 0 0 Co Co 0) ';t 'qt Co N C) a) te, 69 Q:). 69 Cq 7 69 ER to 6-t co N CD CO O 0 0 0 qq- co E M N 0 C) C* - m ce) co -: Z 69 69� 0 U) 4- .— U) .0 Q 4- co F— c < u CD = ca L U Co C;) 12 0 C: c -0 -C _0 m CL 4-- .2 . E ui a) L m C: LQ) C.) I- (D co =3 CD 0 0 0. vii :3 Lu cu < LL U) 0 U- (n ca E CL coi 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 C) CD 0 0 C14 m N to 0 LO d m Itt a NT V> L6 'i 17 ll� C4 cvi 06 (d Ili 619. 69� 619- 61D. 61), 64 C\l 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 LO to 0 "t 0 C; 7 6e 69 69 C L6 C4 co CO C� (s? LO O N r- C\i L6 E rl- ce) T- z 69 Go!). 64 69 69. V (D < C 0) cc 0 c < u E CD 0 0 (D 0) :3 0 4� 2 a) co -0 c -D O CD L) CM c LU L- < C: tp w cu CL :3 A CL Lu 0) 5 0 0 m U- (n U) U- U) 0 CL co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 C) r- 0 0 N 0 N M w N w m N 0 LO (0 r-- 609 619, 61-11 ci cf� L6 61). 6p#- 6M9- � 64 6pt. 60!� N co 0 69 69 r —C) 0 c) —0 —Lo- —a -C 0 CD U') LO C> 0 1— 0 C) 0 0 Co Co 0) ';t 'qt Co N C) a) te, 69 Q:). 69 Cq 7 69 ER to 6-t co N CD CO O 0 0 0 qq- co E M N 0 C) C* - m ce) co -: Z 69 69� 0 U) 4- .— U) .0 Q 4- co F— c < u CD = ca L U Co C;) 12 0 C: c -0 -C _0 m CL 4-- .2 . E ui a) L m C: LQ) C.) I- (D co =3 CD 0 0 0. vii :3 Lu cu < LL U) 0 U- (n ca E CL coi ��C)ISEMOUl r 1 EXECUTIVE MMA SU RY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session Meeting: March 13, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: Fire Department compensation AGENDA SECTION: � tM PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator AGENDA NO. 2 L ATTACHMENTS: Firefighter pay rates, Firefighter total compensation, Fire Department expenditures per capita, Memo on APPROVED BY: possible longer range needs, memo from Chief Aker, information from February work session RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion only BACKGROUND A proposal to increase fire department pay from $6 to $10 per call and generally increase officer stipends by 10% was budgeted for 2013 and discussed at the February work session. Council members asked for revisions, expansions, reorganization and updates on the data presented at that time. DISCUSSION The attachments show that more cities have now been added for comparison purposes. The cities have been divided into two groups: cities near us and cities similar in size and structure to us throughout the metro area. For each group, we are now showing the mean, median, high and low results next to Rosemount for each category. Also, all information in the attached charts is no older than 2012 and much of it is 2013. The exception is that 2010 Census data is used for population. Finally, we have provided a discussion and some calculations of potential future costs of a duty crew and full-time staff. Chief Aker has provided additional information on these topics.as well. SUMMARY Council members should review the data and direct staff regarding changes in compensation for the Fire Department. Discussion regarding the Fire Relief Association will be planned for a future meeting. If Council members believe that significant additional information or analysis is needed, consideration should be given to hiring a consultant as Chanhassen has done recently. FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION RATES Population On Call Pay Pension per per hr. unless noted Year of Service 6.00 per call 6,900 (2010 census) Rosemount current 21,874 Rosemount proposed 10.00 per call 6,900 Rosemount estimated 6,900 per hour based on $30 NEARBY CITIES Apple Valley 49,084 13.99 6,400 Lakeville 55,954 10.00 6,417 Farmington 21,086 10.21 4,575 Eagan (per call) 64,206 15.00 6,716 Inver Grove Heights 33,880 11.50 5,800 Hastings 22,491 13.00 4,000 Average Nearby Cities 41,117 12.28 5,651 Median Nearby Cities 41,482 12.25 6,100 High 64,206 13.99 6,716 Low 21,086 10.00 4,000 Rosemount proposed 21,874 10.00 6,900 SIMILAR CITIES Chanhassen 22,952 9.00 5,050 Cottage Grove 34,589 11.00 3,600 Golden Valley 20,371 14.40 6,700 Hopkins 17,591 13.52 7,000 New Brighton 21,456 13.55 5,600 Prior Lake 22,796 11.00 6,500 Shakopee 37,076 10.00 7,500 Stillwater 18,225 11.25 5,000 Farmington 21,086 10.21 4,575 Inver Grove Heights 33,880 11.50 5,800 Hastings 22,172 13.00 4,000 Average Similar Cities 24,745 11.68 5,575 Median Similar Cities 22,172 11.25 5,600 High 37,076 14.40 7,500 Low 17,591 9.00 3,600 Rosemount proposed 21,874 10.00 6,900 FIREFIGHTER TOTAL COMPENSATION -20 YEAR CAREER Note: All data is 2012 -2013 except population is 2010 Census. Sources: Staff survey and League of Minnesota Cities website Population On Call Pay Pension Total Career Comp (2010 census) Payment Compensation per hour Rosemount current 21,874 35,478.26 138,000.00 173,478.26 22.67 Rosemount $10 /call 21,874 59,130.43 138,000.00 197,130.43 25.76 NEARBY CITIES Apple Valley 49,084 107,051.48 128,000.00 235,051.48 30.72 Lakeville 55,954 76,520.00 128,340.00 204,860.00 26.77 Farmington 21,086 78,126.92 91,500.00 169,626.92 22.17 Eagan 64,206 88,695.65 134,320.00 223,015.65 29.14 Inver Grove Heights 33,880 87,998.00 116,000.00 203,998.00 26.66 Hastings 22,491 99,476.00 80,000.00 179,476.00 23.45 Average Nearby Cities 41,117 89,645 113,027 202,671 26.49 Median Nearby Cities 41,482 88,346 122,000 223,517 29.21 High 64,206 107,051 134,020 261,856 34.22 Low 21,086 76,520 80,000 189,189 24.72 Rosemount proposed 21,874 59,130 138,000 197,130 25.76 SIMILAR CITIES Chanhassen 22,952 68,868.00 101,000 169,868.00 22.20 84,172.00 Cottage Grove 34,589 72,000 156,172.00 20.41 Golden Valley 20,371 110,188.80 134,000 244,188.80 31.91 Hopkins 17,591 103,455.04 140,000 243,455.04 31.82 New Brighton 21,456 103,684.60 112,000 215,684.60 28.19 Prior Lake 22,796 84,172.00 130,000 214,172.00 27.99 Shakopee 37,076 76,520.00 150,000 226,520.00 29.60 Stillwater 18,225 86,085.00 100,000 186,085.00 24.32 Farmington 21,086 78,126.92 91,500 169,626.92 22.17 Inver Grove Heights 33,880 87,998.00 116,000 203,998.00 26.66 Hastings 22,172 99,476.00 80,000 1 179,476.001 23.45 Average Similar Cities 24,745 89,341 111,500 200,841 26.25 Median Similar Cities 22,172 86,085 112,000 226,032 26.66 High 37,076 137,779 150,000 271,779 31.91 Low 17,591 86,112 72,000 177,248 20.41 Rosemount proposed 21,874 59,130 138,000 197,130 25.76 Note: All data is 2012 -2013 except population is 2010 Census. Sources: Staff survey and League of Minnesota Cities website FIRE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA Population Fire Expendiures (2010 census) 2013 Fire Budget Per Capita Rosemount 21,874 437,000 19.98 NEARBY CITIES Apple Valley 49,084 1,960,500.00 39.94 Lakeville (2012) 55,954 1,407,095.00 25.15 Farmington 21,086 1,090,716.00 51.73 Eagan 64,206 1,897,400.00 29.55 Inver Grove Heights 33,880 1,377,000.00 40.64 Hastings* 22,491 3,221,776.00 143.25 Average Nearby Cities 41,117 1,825,748 55.04 Median Nearby Cities 41,482 1,652,247 40.29 High 64,206 3,221,776 143.25 Low 21,086 1,090,716 25.15 Rosemount 21,874 437,000 19.98 SIMILAR CITIES - Chanhassen 22,952 757,300.00 32.99 Cottage Grove (2012) 34,589 837,585.00 24.22 Golden Valley 20,371 1,591,200.00 78.11 Hopkins (2012) 17,591 855,424.00 48.63 New Brighton 21,456 845,000.00 39.38 Prior Lake 22,796 857,539.00 37.62 Shakopee 37,076 1,792,325.00 48.34 Stillwater (2012) 18,225 1,352,010.00 74.18 Farmington 21,086 1,090,716.00 51.73 Inver Grove Heights 33,880 1,377,000.00 40.64 Hastings* 22,172 3,221,776.00 145.31 Average Similar Cities 24,745 1,325,261.36 56.47 Median Similar Cities 22,172 1,090,716.00 48.34 High 37,076 3,221,776.00 145.31 Low 17,591 757,300.00 24.22 Rosemount 21,874 437,000.00 19.98 *Hastings has 14 FT and provides ALS ambulance service with $1.78m in fees. %D EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: March 13, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: Long range Fire Department Budget Discussion AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: APPROVED BY: 0 4J RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion only. BACKGROUND At the February 13'h work session, Council members requested an analysis of impacts on future Fire Department budgets if either a full-time staff member is added and /or a duty crew concept is implemented. For purposes of analysis, we have assumed that a future full-time staff member would be a full time Fire Chief. A duty crew is a concept where a few paid on call firefighters sign up for shifts of 2 -4 hours each during normal work hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M -F) to help assure daytime response. They get an hourly rate similar to their paid on call rate for the hours they work and get some credit for meeting the required percentage of calls response. For this memo, we are assuming that a duty crew would consist of two firefighters filling daytime shifts. It is possible a dozen or more different firefighters might sign up for one or more duty crew shifts per month. DISCUSSION Before discussing the details, it has not been determined that either a full-time chief or a duty crew is necessary at this time. In our Chief selection process, we had four capable candidates, all of whom represented that they have the necessary time to devote to the job. This suggests that the need for a full- time chief may be at least three years away, since the Chiefs position has a three year term. Chief Aker has submitted information that indicates that 17% of all calls had less than 10 firefighters responding, but only 1% had fewer than five responding. There is some anecdotal evidence that firefighters tend to respond to some degree according to the information details in the call and self - evaluate the need for a major response. And, before any Duty Crew is implemented, the City could look at the number and kind of medical calls to which we respond, especially if HealthEast continues to improve its ambulance response time. We may also be able to share a Duty Crew with one or more neighboring cities. Finally we may have some future potential for regular City employees to provide daytime response. It is wise, however, to be ready for any future contingency if some unforeseen change in the Fire Department, the community, or something external occurs such as a new government mandate. The cost of a full-time Chief would be estimated at $130,000 per year, based on a review of salaries and benefits in other communities. However, the City already budgets a stipend for the Chief who also receives paid -on -call compensation based on the number of calls answered. A full-time chief would not also be paid a stipend or receive on -call pay. Therefore, the net new cost of a Fire Chief is estimated at $117,000. Other options might include hiring a half -time salaried Chief if qualified candidates could be found or phasing in a full-time chief over two budget years to mitigate the immediate budget impact. It is assumed that a duty crew would supplement and not replace current day time response. Therefore, this analysis assumes that two weekday slots would be filled from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Since most firefighters probably do not work their full-time jobs on national holidays, we further assume that the duty crews are needed during the daytime hours for 250 days per year (52 weeks x 5 days /week less 10 holidays) The calculation of the cost of a duty crew can be summarized as follows: 9 hours per day x two firefighters at a time = 18 hours per day 18 hours per day x 250 days x $10 /hr.= $45,000 per year There would some savings in night -time and weekend call response, since the people serving on duty crews would be less likely to respond if their requirements are mostly met through duty crew assignments. On the other hand, there is some administrative cost for someone to fill the shifts and supervise the activities of the duty crew members when they are not out on calls. Typical duties include minor equipment and station maintenance, fire prevention activities, public education and fire pre - planning for larger buildings in the community. While these costs tend to cancel out, the costs of supervision are probably greater than the savings in night and weekend response. Therefore, rounding up, we would estimate the cost of a two person duty crew program at about $50,000 per year. BUDGETIMPACT If we hire a full-time Chief and implement a duty crew, the total budget impact would be about $167,000. These expenditures would be in the General Fund of the City which currently receives 79% of its revenue from property taxes. This amount is equal to 1.56 percent of the General Fund. This may or not require an overall property tax increase depending on many other conditions in the budget at that time. For example, the budgeted amount for Fire Department salaries has increased by $115,407 from 2011 to 2013, but the City's total levy decreased by $502,457 during that time. SUMMARY The timing and need for a full-time Chief or a Duty Crew is uncertain, and in the case of the Duty Crew concept, there are several management strategies to consider before implementation. Based on our current Fire Chief selection process, we may not need a full-time Chief for 3 -6 years. Daytime response should be monitored and a Duty Crew may be needed sooner, depending somewhat on the level of service the Council wishes to provide and unknown future events. The cost of a both a full time Chief and a Duty Crew are estimated at $167.000 in today's dollars. The source of funding would be the General Fund, which is 79% supported by property taxes. This could add 1.56% to our future tax levy for the Fire Department, but whether or not this would be the cause of an overall City tax increase in some future year will depend upon many other factors. 2 Firefighter Response During Work Day Without manually sorting through the 724 calls that the fire department responded to in 2012 it is not possible to isolate the calls that occurred during normal daytime working hours. It can likely be assumed that the calls with the fewest number of firefighters responding were during the day. The number of firefighters at each call was available by looking at past pay information. Below is the number of calls that occurred with less than 10 firefighters responding. Firefighters Number of Calls 9 28 8 32 7 32 6 13 5 11 4 5 3 3 2 1 Minimum acceptable number of firefighters responding The minimum number of firefighters needed to safely and efficiently handle an emergency call varies greatly with the type of call, location, and department procedures. For a minor medical call that is also being responded to by the police department, 3 firefighters could be adequate. That number would increase with a more severe medical call. Additional firefighters would be needed for a vehicle accident. The need for 15 firefighters would not be uncommon for a structure fire, and weather conditions could dramatically increase that needed number. If 10 firefighters are used for an average need at a high priority call, the above data would indicate that 125 calls or 17% fell below what would be desirable. However, at no time during 2012 did we feel that any calls failed to be handled properly due to the number of firefighters that responded. In other words the calls with a low turn -out of firefighters were apparently low priority calls requiring minimal personnel. Trigger for a Duty Crew Program The number of firefighters available during the day, call volume, availability by station, and response time seem to be the triggers that have moved other departments to the duty crew approach during the day. Neighboring departments that have duty crews are responding to at least twice as many calls as we are experiencing in Rosemount. Duty crews can take some of the load off of the day time responders who are typically few in number compared to the night time responders. One or two firefighters showing up at each station in a multi station city can be delayed in their response compared to a response when they are pooled together as a duty crew. Response time by a paid -on call department is composed of travel time to the station by firefighters in their person vehicles, and then response to the incident in emergency vehicles. A duty crew could theoretically reduce that response time to calls by 50% in many situations. When will there be a need for duty crews As was mentioned, increased population, increased number of calls, and the need for a 3`d fire station will all have an impact on the timing of the addition of a duty crew during the day. An inability to maintain response time, or desire to improve that time and improve the ISO rating would be decisions that could influence the desire for a duty crew at any time. A decrease in day -time available firefighters is always a concern, and firefighters are recruited accordingly. Currently we have firefighters who are retired, work second shift, have rotating days off, have early start and end times to their work day, and can leave work to respond to calls. This number can change at any time. Of the 9 firefighters who recently left the department or will soon, 6 of those 9 were available for day time response. Additionally 7 of those 9 were experience officers with the department. I do not believe a duty crew is warranted at the present time, but the factors that have an influence on that need should be monitored, as they have changed somewhat already, and have the potential to change quickly. Size of duty crew Some duty crews are used as a supplement to a paged response by the other paid -on call firefighters. That number can be as few as 2 firefighters on the duty crew. Some cities utilize their duty crews as a replacement to paging the paid -on -call firefighters during the day. A crew of 3 -4 is able to handle a majority of medical calls, fire alarms, CO calls, lift assists, and calls requiring a minimal amount of personnel. Cost to provide duty crews Duty crews are paid at the department's hourly rate, or if given a stipend for calls, are paid that stipend each hour effectively making it an hourly rate. The number of hours per day varies by department. A neighboring department utilizes duty crews on week days. They operate from 8AM to 513M. Those 9 hours are divided into two 4 % hours shifts with 2 firefighters on duty each shift to supplement the paged response. The cost would be: 4 firefighters per day X 4 %: hours X 5 days a week X hourly rate X 52 weeks = Annual cost If a department uses duty crews as a replacement to paging the rest of the firefighters there is some cost recovery to the salaries paid to the duty crews. However, a replacement crew would typically involve more than 2 firefighters so although there is some cost recovery there is also additional expense when the replacement model is used. Additional Information While on duty the duty crews are working. They are doing maintenance, routine inspection of equipment and vehicles, station housekeeping, fire prevention activities, inspections, preplans, providing assistance to the Fire Marshall, etc. There does need to be someone responsible for the logistics that are needed to operate a duty crew. Someone needs to be responsible for scheduling firefighters and assigning work each day. There is sometimes a cap on the number of hours a firefighter may work on a duty crew. At the present time an eye is being kept on the effect that Obama Care may have on the requirement to provide medical benefits if a firefighter works more than a certain number of hours in a week. If a duty crew is used to replace firefighters as was mentioned earlier, someone needs to monitor staffing levels and be in contact with the dispatching agency daily. The dispatching agency needs to know if they should be assigning calls to the duty crew, or paging the paid -on -call firefighters. This could even fluctuate mid -day if some shifts are not fully staffed. ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE UT VE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session Meeting: February 13, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: Fire Department Compensation AGENDA SECTION: m PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Compensation proposal; Multi -City comparison chart APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider compensation changes for Fire Department personnel BACKGROUND For nearly two years, the Council has been reviewing Fire Department compensation. The purpose of the ongoing review is primarily to help assure that the Fire Department can attract and maintain enough paid on call firefighters to continue to provide effective service to Rosemount for years to come. We are also seeking to be competitive in total compensation (including pension) with neighboring cities. Last year, the Council approved an increase in firefighter pay per call from $2 per call to $6 per call. Market studies show that we are still behind all other area cities in total compensation. The Fire Department has recommended additional increases in compensation as shown on the attached chart. Generally, the recommendation shows firefighter pay increasing from $6 to $10 per call and increases in the stipend for officers of about 10% (slightly more for the Lieutenant and Training Assistant). The last time pay was adjusted for the officers was in 2006. DISCUSSION Staff has reviewed the Fire Department's recommendations relative to the total compensation practices of other nearby cities. Rosemount has a higher pension benefit than the other cities, but also by far the lowest pay. In order to weigh these two items together, we analyzed what a Rosemount firefighter who serves for 20 years and retires would get in total compensation over that time period in both pay and pension benefits. We then looked at what this total compensation would be after 20 years in a number of our neighboring cities as shown in the second attached chart. This chart shows that with the proposed increase to $10 per call, Rosemount will be much closer, but still somewhat below most of our neighboring cities in total compensation. The Fire Department Relief Association discussed a $100 per year of service increase recently, but decided against it for this year. As discussed in the several recent City budget memos, the City at some point will likely need to consider adding one or more staff members to the Fire Department and implementing a Duty Crew concept to aid in day time response, even after implementation of the proposed increases in pay per can and officer stipends. For now, the Fire Department's recommendations on pay appear to be a reasonable next step in a longer range plan to assure the future of our very cost - efficient department. The 2013 Fire Department budget has sufficient funding to accomodate the proposal. 0 0 N 0 0 M 0 0 N 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 d• 0 0 M 0 0 NT 0 0 O 0 0 Ili � 69- K? � 6s N M_ O O O O O O O O O y a o O N 0 T- O M L 6a} LO 0 � 6s 0 LO 69 0 0 6D- 0 In 69 0 d N 694- 0 � 69 (n 0 C co O 0 6 9 a co 00 0 0 0 0 L O (.0 U-) O d CO N M O C0 N ti 1` N Lr 3 co Z EFi 69 Ef-} 69 69 o a !E U q c� � 0- q . � N C '� O co -� w � � i U CL) 2 ~ O 0� 4— N U- - N a Cn Q ~ ~ O � m � � Q v C c� m O o 0 0 0 Ln 0 o Lf) O LO 0 M 0 w 0 w 0 N 0 w 1` M 0 N O OU') N O O N r- _" Ef} 69 IZ fl: 69- � 69 Ef} 09- � N co O 69- 69 � 0 0 0 0 0 t1) O O O .- O�U') 0 0 1` O O to O L co 00 d: 0) 69 d' 69 q3 Q=, co fa N N O r N N M � 69 E Z d' ('M N � C'M 0 O O M 0 cl N r- 69 U-) 0~0 't C) r o V LO (0 c a N U U Q C cv Q- N 0 C — :3 0 J U) Q rn-0 c E— C O w � LL co �' 0 0 L O (/) cm LL _0 C a. C!) O ~ N 3 m U C (D o w m L s a� U co m C O H f6 O. E O U C M O � ( N CL m E = O O U 0, LL d E J 00 8 00 W O C5 rt W n N N OD C m O M N 000 O N m S 00 O M O M m N .O = O O O O N t0 ei t0 N L C7 L d C Ln to o o Ln tD m 0) 1 MN N ON to m C c o6 IT m 0 W N N c 8 00 rl Q1 O M 0) c co to O W 00 ti 1--1 O C m 01 co E A LL v 0J 3 8 O O n N N � M O N O v N mV j m1 O N N L N m 14 N 00 m M YN N N N V �p u C n J c m a, o V_ 2 H w N m O o N m cn m Ln 0 Ln rl N O c O c y W C 00 O A C O m m-I 00 N N N C C O f0 i v o 0 Y N N m T cl� 00 �t Lr) _ Ln a w 00 C d' W C � H m H a a a V �e cl� N L1. E M `� V LL L Z Z LLI r rn 0. N L M I N r-I Lu LU LL w C d vi w/ Wry L m 3 V 0 a m LO a o m a) CL V1 a Q � 0 V) v N 0 00 n 0 p V1' N L � N � a L L Ln Lu Q LZ ..1., 0 ai u a C uo O Cl) � G O O Lr f0 E N U tlJ M L w U 0 O N f1. e i x EE Attachment 2 Paid On -Call Firpfiehtp.r Organization Andover "op • 31,298 p- i 518.86 didn't respond accordingly yes Chanhassen 23,629 $9.00 $5. 050 no Co umbia Heights 19' R! 12.84 didn't respond accor ingly yes -& AC Cottage Grove 34,000 $11.00 $3,600 yes Farmington 21,086 $10.21 $4,575 no. Golden Valley 20,371 14.40 $6,700 yes Hastings 22,491 13.00 $4,000 yes & AC Hopkins 17,290 13.52 7,000 yes Inver Grove Heights 33,600 $11.50 $5,800 yes & AC New Brighton 22,321 13.55 5,600 yes PSDj Prior Lake 23,335 11.00 6,500 yes Ramsey 23,272 $12.88 didn t respond accordingly yes flalsu . ,. 7 p� _3. ,.,� yes Shakopee 37,000 $10,00 $7,500 Stillwater 18,235 $11.25 $5,0100 yes Average $12.00 $5,575 6— A�E3r00A-gll 6 ?�G La 11• 0t0 0 l �r- I I/ U4( $1:091hr- (C�, KID C) f