New Search
__ _ <br />;~. ~ ~-- <br />Pr0&I10~10~1Sm <br />The following department personnel received <br />promotions during Fiscal Year 2007: <br />Chief of Department Randy Groves <br />Deputy Chief Joe Zaludek <br />District Chief Scott Bishop <br />Captain Mike Barnebey <br />Captain Rich Hill <br />Captain Joe Seibert <br />Lieutenant Rod Cullen <br />Lieutenant Derek Grafton <br />Lieutenant Dave McNeil <br />Engineer Tyler Cain <br />Engineer Ron Hooker <br />Engineer Cory Tuntland <br />fears-o Service ilestones® <br />The following personnel reached career mile- <br />stoneswith the department: <br />25 Years: <br />Captain Rick Dvorak <br />Captain Dan Snyder <br />Firefighter Barry Floyd <br />20 Years: <br />District Chief Scott Bishop <br />Captain Matt Ennis <br />Captain Michael Kenworthy <br />Captain Jim Montgomery <br />Captain Craig Shelby <br />Engineer Linn Burch <br />Engineer Greg Deggleman <br />Engineer Sharon McCool <br />Firefighter Dave Hall <br />Firefighter Bruce Larson <br />I S Years: <br />District Chief Lance Lighty <br />Captain Steve Kropf <br />Captain John Schmitt <br />Captain Brian Smith <br />Captain Ray Smith <br />Captain Matt Steinberg <br />Captain Jim Walter <br />Engineer Ron Apling <br />Engineer Tony Peterson <br />10 Years: <br />Video Technician Barry Burleson <br />Dep. Fire Marshal Mark Thompson <br />S Years: <br />Engineer Tyler Cain <br />Engineer Dan Finney <br />Engineer Rick Olsen <br />Engineer Cory Tuntland <br />Firefighter Rachel Smith <br />Firefighter Joe Spriggs <br />etirerrlents: <br />The following personnel retired from the <br />department in fiscal year 2007: <br />Chief of Department Tom Tallon <br />Captain Tim Cramblit <br />Captain Rick Dvorak <br />Firefighter Larry Von Moos <br />Resource Commitment by Call Type <br />Average Minutes in Service by Call Type <br />151.41 <br />The above graph provides an illustration of the disparate resource commitments required fotj tht <br />most common types of calls to which the Fire & EMS Department responds. Structure Tires <br />generally require a greater amount of on-scene and recovery time than most other types of tttlls~ <br />However, the disparity is even greater than that, because the department's standard response tt <br />an EMS call is one engine and one medic unit -collectively carrying a total of five personnel <br />while the standard response to a residential structure fire is three engines, one truck, one medle <br />unit, and two Chief Officers, for a total of 16 personnel. Commercial, industrial, and high-t'st <br />fires receive an even greater initial response. <br />Because fires take longer, and require more personnel, it would not be correct to assume that <br />the respective resource commitments of the department between fires and medical emergencies <br />are directly proportional to the number of calls of each type. The great majority of calls art h~t° <br />emergency medical response, but iri terms of actual department resources required and tomtnlt~ <br />fed, the difference is not as great as one might assume. This is even more true when factot's <br />such as return to' quarters, recovery (cleanup, decontamination, resupply), and follow-ttp rcp~tt l <br />ing requirements are also considered, for fires versus medical calls. <br />(Note: Time in service on the Gheen fire is excluded from the graph.) <br />34 <br />~S <br />Structure Fires All Other Fire calls Metlical Incidents Rescue Incidents Other Incidents <br />