Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
October 2004
Alachua County, Florida Fire/EMS Services Master Plan Prepared by Phil Kouwe Bernie Harcher John Best Todd LeDuc
October 2004 25200 SW Parkway Ave., Suite 3 Wilsonville, OR 97070 503-570-7778 800-757-3724 fax: 503-570-0522 www.esci.us ©Copyright 2004 MDI Consulting Group Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise without the expressed written permission of Emergency Services Consulting inc.
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table Of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................5 Section I- Current System Analysis ................................................................10 History and Development ......................................................................................... 10 Previous Organizational Planning Efforts............................................................... 13 System Overview....................................................................................................... 15 Alachua County Fire Rescue ................................................................................... 19 Cross Creek Volunteer Fire Department ................................................................. 56 City of Gainesville Fire Rescue Department ............................................................ 63 City of High Springs Fire Department ...................................................................... 86 Town of LaCrosse Fire Department......................................................................... 94 Melrose Volunteer Fire Department....................................................................... 102 Town of Micanopy Fire Department....................................................................... 110 City of Newberry Fire Department ......................................................................... 117 City of Waldo Fire Department .............................................................................. 124 Windsor Volunteer Fire Department ...................................................................... 131 Alachua County Consolidated Communications Center ........................................ 137 Current Deployment Model..................................................................................... 139 System-wide Workload Evaluation ........................................................................ 139 System-wide Performance and Outcomes ............................................................ 143 System-wide Service Gaps.................................................................................... 153 System-wide Service Redundancy ........................................................................ 156 Current Standards Compliance ............................................................................. 158
Section II- System Demand Projections .......................................................169 Population Projections / Demographics ............................................................... 169 Service Demand Projections .................................................................................. 174 Community Risk Analysis ...................................................................................... 176 Future Service Delivery Zones ............................................................................... 180
Section III- Future Delivery System Models..................................................182 Future Deployment Recommendations................................................................. 184 Facilities- Maintain Current Levels of Service........................................................ 184 Facilities- Reduced level of service ....................................................................... 186 Facilities- Improved level of service....................................................................... 187 Apparatus .............................................................................................................. 193 Staffing................................................................................................................... 195 Growth Sensitivity Analysis.................................................................................... 201 Projecting Future System Costs ............................................................................ 203 Future Organizational Strategy “A” – Autonomous Organizations.................... 206 Organizational Structure- Strategy “A”................................................................... 206 Cost Projections- Strategy “A” ............................................................................... 207 Strengths and Weaknesses- Strategy “A” ............................................................. 211 Future Organizational Strategy “B” – Operational Consolidation ...................... 213 Organizational Structure- Strategy “B”................................................................... 213 Cost Projections- Strategy “B” ............................................................................... 216 Strengths and Weaknesses- Strategy “B” ............................................................. 218 Future Organizational Strategy “C” – Full Merger, Fire District.......................... 220 Organizational Structure- Strategy “C” .................................................................. 220 Cost Projections- Strategy “C” ............................................................................... 222 Strengths and Weaknesses- Strategy “C” ............................................................. 224
1
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Findings: Recommended Long-Term Strategy .................................................... 226
Section IV- Short and Mid-Term Strategies ..................................................229 Efficiency Strategies ............................................................................................... 229 Risk Mitigation Strategies....................................................................................... 241
Section V- Financial Strategies .....................................................................246 Options for Cost Recovery ..................................................................................... 246 Analysis of Current Cost Sharing Methods .......................................................... 247 Tax Rate Variations By Level Of Service............................................................... 253
Appendices .....................................................................................................255 Appendix A: Apparatus Condition Assessment Definitions ............................... 255 Appendix B: Summary of Public and Stakeholder Input ..................................... 256 Appendix C: Report Maps....................................................................................... 261
INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1: Agency Cost Comparison Summary.................................................................. 7 Figure 2: ACFR Current Fire Station Deployment........................................................... 51 Figure 3: ACFR Rescue Unit Deployment ...................................................................... 52 Figure 4: Cross Creek VFD Current Station Deployment ............................................... 61 Figure 5: Gainesville FD Current Station Deployment .................................................... 82 Figure 6: High Springs FD Current Station Deployment ................................................. 92 Figure 7: LaCrosse FD Current Station Deployment .................................................... 100 Figure 8: Melrose VFD Current Station Deployment..................................................... 108 Figure 9: Micanopy FD Current Station Deployment .................................................... 115 Figure 10: Newberry FD Current Station Deployment .................................................. 123 Figure 11: Waldo FD Current Station Deployment........................................................ 129 Figure 12: Windsor VFD Current Station Deployment .................................................. 136 Figure 13: Responses By Type - 2003.......................................................................... 139 Figure 14: Response Activity By Geography - 2003 ..................................................... 140 Figure 15: Response Activity By Geography and Incident Type - 2003........................ 141 Figure 16: Workload By Month Of Year - 2003 ............................................................. 142 Figure 17: Workload By Day Of Week - 2003 ............................................................... 142 Figure 18: Workload By Hour Of Day - 2003 ................................................................ 143 Figure 19: Fire Growth Sequence ................................................................................. 145 Figure 20: Cardiac Arrest Event Sequence................................................................... 147 Figure 21: Response Time Performance By Geography - 2003 ................................... 151 Figure 22: Response Time Performance Comparison To Service Class...................... 152 Figure 23: Response Time Capability Of Current Fire Deployment.............................. 154 Figure 24: Response Time Capability Of Current EMS Deployment ............................ 155 Figure 25: Fire Service Overlap In Current Deployment ............................................... 156 Figure 26: EMS Overlap In Current Deployment .......................................................... 157 Figure 27: Alachua County Population Density- 2000 U.S. Census ............................. 169 Figure 28: Alachua County Population History ............................................................. 170 Figure 29: Census-based Population Forecast Model .................................................. 171 Figure 30: Population Forecast By Land Development................................................. 172
2
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 31: Population Increase by Traffic Analysis Zone, 2004-2025........................... 173 Figure 32: Community Fire Impact Risk Assessment Map ........................................... 180 Figure 33: Future Service Delivery Class Planning Zones............................................ 181 Figure 34: Recommended Facility Additions To Maintain Current Service Levels ....... 185 Figure 35: Deployment For Optimum Service Level Performance- Overview .............. 188 Figure 36: Deployment For Optimum Service Level Performance- Urban/Suburban View ...............................................................................................................................189 Figure 37: Recommended EMS Deployment Plan ....................................................... 191 Figure 38: Tiered Intervention Model Conceptual Drawing........................................... 244
INDEX OF TABLES Table 1: Alachua County ISO Ratings Summary ............................................................ 23 Table 2: ACFR Apparatus Replacement Funding Tables ............................................... 41 Table 3: ACFR Employment Roster- All Programs ......................................................... 43 Table 4: ACFR Admin / Support Staffing Table .............................................................. 45 Table 5: ACFR Operations Staffing Table....................................................................... 46 Table 6: ACFR Operations Staff Deployment ................................................................. 46 Table 7: ACFR Minimum Staffing By Apparatus Type .................................................... 48 Table 8: ACFR Current Standard Of Cover .................................................................... 50 Table 9: Cross Creek VFD Apparatus Replacement Funding Table .............................. 59 Table 10: GFR Apparatus Replacement Funding Table ................................................. 77 Table 11: GFR Admin / Support Staffing Table............................................................... 78 Table 12: GFR Operations Staffing Tables ..................................................................... 79 Table 13: GFR Minimum Staffing By Apparatus Type .................................................... 79 Table 14: GFR Current Standard Of Cover..................................................................... 81 Table 15: High Springs Apparatus Replacement Funding Table .................................... 89 Table 16: LaCrosse Apparatus Replacement Funding Table ......................................... 97 Table 17: Melrose Apparatus Replacement Funding Table.......................................... 105 Table 18: Micanopy Apparatus Replacement Funding Table ....................................... 113 Table 19: Newberry Apparatus Replacement Funding Table ....................................... 120 Table 20: Waldo Apparatus Replacement Funding Table ............................................ 127 Table 21: Windsor Apparatus Replacement Funding Table ......................................... 134 Table 22: Minimum Firefighting Personnel Needed Based Upon Level of Risk............ 150 Table 23: Alachua County Demographic Data, Population and Housing...................... 169 Table 24: Annual Population Growth Rate Projection Summary .................................. 174 Table 25: Historical Workload Rates 2000-2003........................................................... 175 Table 26: GFR Facility Deployment Modification Table ................................................ 190 Table 27: ACFR Facility Deployment Modification Table.............................................. 190 Table 28: EMS Units Facility Deployment Modification Table....................................... 192 Table 29: Recommended Deployment Modifications For GFR Ladder Service ........... 193 Table 30: Additional Rescue Deployment Recommendations ...................................... 194 Table 31: Critical Tasking Analysis ............................................................................... 196 Table 32: System Standard Of Cover Review .............................................................. 197 Table 33: Future Operations Duty Staff Deployment Model ......................................... 200
3
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 34: Rescue Additions Population Growth Sensitivity Analysis ............................ 202 Table 35: GFR Modeled Future Operating Budget Projection- Strategy A ................... 208 Table 36: GFR Capital Cost Projection- Strategy A ...................................................... 209 Table 37: ACFR Modeled Operating Budget Projection- Strategy A ............................ 210 Table 38: ACFR Capital Cost Projection- Strategy A.................................................... 210 Table 39: Financial Analysis Summary- Strategy A ...................................................... 211 Table 40: Operationally Consolidated Agency Modeled Operating Budget ProjectionStrategy B .............................................................................................................. 217 Table 41: Operationally Consolidated Agency Capital Cost Projection- Strategy B ..... 217 Table 42: Financial Analysis Summary- Strategy B ...................................................... 218 Table 43: Merged Agency Modeled Operating Budget Projection- Strategy C............. 223 Table 44: Merged Agency Capital Cost Projection- Strategy C .................................... 224 Table 45: Financial Analysis Summary- Strategy C...................................................... 224 Table 46: Financial Analysis- All Strategy Comparison ................................................ 227 Table 47: Cost Projections By Budget Category- Autonomous Model and Unified Models ...............................................................................................................................228 Table 48: Estimated Revenue Potential - Code Enforcement....................................... 247 Table 49: Average Fire Protection Cost By Service Delivery Class.............................. 254
4
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Executive Summary Purpose of This Report This report details the study of fire protection services in Alachua County, Florida. Specifically, the study involves ten agencies:
Alachua County Fire Rescue (ACFR) …including the communities of Hawthorne, Archer, and Alachua
Cross Creek Volunteer Fire Department City of Gainesville Fire Rescue (GFR) City of High Springs Fire Department Town of LaCrosse Fire Department Melrose Volunteer Fire Department Town of Micanopy Fire Department City of Newberry Fire Department City of Waldo Fire Department Windsor Volunteer Fire Department
The first section of the report reviews basic administrative and operational systems of each agency.
The second section identifies the current levels of performance and
recommends the specific changes or additions in the deployment of facilities, apparatus, and staff necessary to achieve the target levels of performance identified by the communities. The final section of the report provides feasible strategies for the overall organizational design, structure, and governance of the emergency services system and provides a brief analysis, including financial comparisons, of each strategy. This section culminates in a recommendation for the long-term organizational strategy deemed most effective and efficient. The staffs of the fire departments and the communities have provided a great deal of written and verbal information to us. Many of the staff members have been generous in their effort to provide us with accurate and complete information. We are grateful for their able assistance and cooperation throughout this process. We recognize that information, by its very nature, is often incomplete as it changes from moment to moment.
Every effort is made though, to compile data that are as
comprehensive and as accurate as possible.
Our information gathering process
5
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
includes a broad evaluation checklist of each organization, measuring results against acceptable industry standards and good practices.
Whenever possible, we make
quantifiable comparisons to other fire and emergency medical service organizations. Checklists and documentation are followed up by one-on-one interviews with key staff members from each of the agencies and every program area. Section I The section provides an overview of each agency and briefly describes its governance, management components, staffing systems, current resource deployment, and special programs. As requested in the scope of work for this project, each agencies facilities and apparatus were inventoried, reviewed, and evaluated. The report found most departments operating with an expected level of effectiveness. Several facilities were identified as in need of repair, maintenance, or renovation with a few identified as interfering with efficient staff operation. Apparatus was generally found to be in good to excellent condition and well-suited to its applicable use. An analysis of the current workload identified no unusual or unexpected service demand for a community of this nature. Workload history showed light growth in overall service demand. The analysis of system-wide performance and outcomes reveals that the system is not currently meeting the performance objectives for suburban or urban areas as identified by the County in its three-level service class system. Further analysis by geographic information systems software indicates the current facility and resource deployment is not capable of these response times at the stated 80th percentile performance objective. Gaps in service delivery capability were visually identified and noted. Very little redundancy was found within the current deployment. An analysis of cost per $1,000 of assessed value and cost per capita is provided in each agency’s evaluation section. The following table summarizes the cost comparisons.
6
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 1: Agency Cost Comparison Summary
Agency ACFR All Areas Cross Creek Gainesville High Springs LaCrosse Melrose Micanopy Newberry Waldo Windsor
Cost @ $1000 Value $ 2.11 $ 2.03 $ 2.14 $ 0.80 $ 1.30 $ 1.37 $ 1.56 $ 5.38 $ 1.88 $ 2.00
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Cost per capita 103.49 76.27 109.13 30.52 33.72 54.63 64.89 190.89 70.20 49.13
Section II This section created the population and service demand projections necessary to the creation of future deployment models. The section includes a review of two population forecasts indicating continued growth in the community between 1.4% and 1.7% annually. Service demand is expected to climb to 35,529 by the year 2025. A community risk analysis, based on occupancy types and density, is provided in this section along with a graphical representation of the analysis county-wide. As with population forecasts, the community risk analysis is another building block on which the future deployment models are based. Finally, the section provides a future projection of the three service class levels defined by the County, plotted geographically on the map. These defined areas projecting the performance objectives to be met in the future provide the final piece of foundation necessary for completion of deployment models and fire protection infrastructure plans. Section III This section provides the “meat and potatoes” of the twenty-year master plan. It contains detailed recommendations for necessary deployment of facilities, apparatus, and staffing over the course of the twenty-year planning period. The deployment of facilities also identifies potential alternatives for decreased levels of service, maintenance of current levels of service, or improved levels of service that were intended to fully meet the performance objectives originally defined by the County.
7
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
In summary, the plan calls for the:
• • • • • • • •
The addition of five new fire stations The relocation of six existing fire stations Vacating two existing stand-alone rescue stations Addition of administrative and support space The addition of six new engine companies The addition of four new rescue companies A daily minimum staffing deployment of 109 personnel system-wide The addition of up to fifteen administrative and support personnel
This section of report also provides three feasible organizational strategies: • Continuation of autonomous organizations • Operational consolidation of ACFR and GFR • Full legal merger of ACFR and GFR with the formation of a new Fire District These three organizational strategies provide sufficient means by which the operational costs of the twenty-year deployment model could be projected (in today’s dollars for comparison ability). Total capital expenditures necessary to fully implement the deployment model were also projected. The summary of these costs projections is as follows: Financial Analysis - All Strategy Comparison Strategy "A" Strategy "B" Total: Independent Consolidated Agency GFR and ACFR Modeled Budget $ 40,878,071 $ 40,330,783 Modeled Operating Revenue $ 6,887,608 $ 6,887,608 Projected Operating Tax Levy $ 33,990,463 $ 33,443,175 Projected Capital Outlay $ 18,436,918 $ 17,886,918 $ 550,000 Projected Total Capital Savings Projected Annual Savings $ 547,288
Strategy "C' Merged Agency/District $ $ $ $
40,330,783 6,887,608 33,443,175 17,886,918
$ $
550,000 547,288
Under the cost projection models, the lowest annual operating tax levy necessary to fund the twenty-year deployment model is seen in a unified, single provider system. Additional strengths and weaknesses of the three feasible strategies are discussed and greater detail on cost projections by budget category is provided.
8
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The conclusion of the analysis provided in this section is a recommendation that the communities pursue a merger of ACFR and GFR into a single agency, funded through a dependent taxing district. The new district would be governed by a Board requiring adequate and fair representation from all governmental entities served by the system, with particular emphasis on Alachua County and Gainesville. All existing facilities, resources, apparatus, equipment, staff, and programs would be merged into the new fire district. Sections IV and V The report concludes with some additional strategies for consideration that involve possible methods for improving the efficiency of the current operation on a more short to mid-term basis. Other strategies are provided that describe possible means of reducing the risk of incident occurrence or reduce the impact of an incident, with particular emphasis on reducing future demand on the emergency service system. Possible means of increasing revenue, including options for cost recovery, are discussed.
9
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Section I- Current System Analysis History and Development Alachua County is located in the north central section of the State of Florida, 85 miles from the Georgia state line, 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico, and 67 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. Alachua County encompasses 965 square miles and includes the municipalities of Archer, Alachua, Gainesville, Hawthorne, High Springs, LaCrosse, Micanopy, Newberry, Waldo, and the unincorporated communities of Melrose, Windsor, and Cross Creek. The County has an estimated year round population of 222,254, including 40,000 University of Florida students. The county is bisected by Interstate 75, a major north-south corridor through the state. Additional major state highways provide access between most municipalities. There is a regional airport located within the City of Gainesville. The topography is relatively flat and consists of agricultural fields, wetlands, and undeveloped wildland areas outside the developed municipalities and rural communities. The fire protection systems in Alachua County developed in staggered timelines. As their communities grew, the municipalities developed their own fire protection systems in an effort to protect their citizens and their economic base. The City of Gainesville, the largest municipality in the county, developed its fire department in 1882. Alachua County was the latest fire department to join the system, beginning direct fire response in 1985, though its history as the Department of Public Safety dates back to 1974 when it began providing its own EMS services. Alachua County utilizes a Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) to collect taxes from the unincorporated areas to fund fire protection outside the municipalities. Prior to 1985, Alachua County had a long history of providing fire protection services through contractual agreements with the municipalities and smaller private volunteer fire departments that had sprung up in a few areas of unincorporated population. In that year, difficulties within that contractual system caused the County to launch its own fire service.
10
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Initially, it began service in a very limited area of the County by placing one fire apparatus in a station located in the “Half Moon” area. This engine was later relocated to the “Jonesville” area. Remaining unincorporated areas continued to be served through contractual arrangements with the municipalities. Within a short time, the County was asked by the City of Alachua to take responsibility for fire protection within that city through a contractual agreement that essentially reversed the traditional role of the County as the “buyer” and the municipalities as the “sellers” of service. Within the last several years, this arrangement has been extended to the cities of Hawthorne and Archer, as well, bringing those municipalities into the jurisdictional area of ACFR by way of contractual agreements. Additional strategic partnerships with the city of Newberry and the Melrose VFD for County staffing have facilitated enhancements to service delivery in those areas. During the late 1980’s, the City of Gainesville sought an increase in funding to continue its agreement to serve unincorporated county areas. The County made the decision to add direct service facilities around the developing urban areas near Gainesville. In an effort to coordinate the development of the two agencies, however, a seven-year agreement was reached between Alachua County and the City of Gainesville to direct the growth of the agencies’ infrastructures. With the conclusion of the agreement, a new interlocal agreement was reached between Gainesville and the County to encourage the concept of “closest unit dispatch”, wherein the closest available and appropriate emergency crew was dispatched to an incident, regardless of jurisdictional lines. The agreement, known as the Designated Assistance Agreement, spells out the conditions under which the cost for these responses will be passed on to the agency within whose jurisdiction the incident occurred. This rather complicated agreement has continued in place for several years, though the response protocols have occasionally been modified by the City of Gainesville, as permitted in the agreement, to exclude certain geographical areas. Simultaneous to the development of the fire service delivery systems as described above, improvements in the delivery of emergency medical services also occurred. Florida law provides counties with sole authority to designate the providers of emergency medical service within their county, regardless of municipal incorporation.
11
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Though a brief effort was made in the late 1970’s to contract EMS out to a third party, it was eventually retained as a direct service provided by Alachua County to all residents throughout the County, both inside and outside of all municipalities. The service is funded primarily through service fees charged to patients who use the service, and is further subsidized by the County’s General Fund. During the 1980’s the service moved to the advanced life support capability using certified Paramedics. Today, the ACFR continues to utilize the various fire departments throughout the county as providers of “first-responder” medical service, though all transport of patients is performed by ACFR units and paramedics. While the small municipalities and VFD’s use EMT’s trained at the basic life support level, the City of Gainesville negotiated an agreement with the County permitting it to provide its first responder service at the higher advanced life support level by placing certified Paramedics on all fire department response units with the exception of airport units. The City of Gainesville funded this improved level of service through its normal fire department budget, derived from the City’s General Fund. Recently, the City of Newberry embarked on an employee-trade agreement in which a Newberry
firefighter/EMT
is
“traded”
to
ACFR
in
exchange
for
an
ACFR
firefighter/paramedic. This arrangement has permitted the ACFR to provide first responder ALS care through the Newberry Fire Department facility and apparatus to the West-Central areas of Alachua County. Additional services are provided by the various agencies studied in this report. Emergency management services are provided on a county-wide basis by ACFR through its Office of Emergency Management and funded through General Fund taxes and various grants. Each department is involved in varying levels of local fire code enforcement, with the most significant programs operated by Alachua County Fire Rescue and the Gainesville Fire Department utilizing full-time certified staff.
Each
agency also provides varying levels of public fire and life safety education, ranging from volunteer departments attending local events to the full-time staffed programs maintained by Alachua County and the City of Gainesville. ACFR’s public education
12
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
program recently received national recognition for innovation and quality. Preparation and maintenance of the county-wide databases utilized in the consolidated communication system are maintained by ACFR’s Enhanced 9-1-1 Division, which is funded by fees of $0.50 per month on telephone lines countywide (both incorporated and unincorporated areas). Throughout the variations in service agreements and contracts, the emergency service agencies have developed, and continue to maintain, a rich tradition of mutual assistance that permits increased efficiency and effectiveness of the entire emergency services delivery system.
Previous Organizational Planning Efforts This study is not the first effort made by the Alachua County community in planning for efficient and effective fire protection. Previous work included efforts by local planning committees, outside consulting firms, and elected or appointed officials. These previous documents were obtained and reviewed in preparation for this effort and many of the stakeholder interviews conducted as a part of this study centered on content, applicability, and success of these previous plans and processes. The following efforts were included in this review. Fire Master Plan- 1989 A fire protection master plan was initiated by a committee of local stakeholders and fire service managers in late 1988, with some amendments to the plan made shortly thereafter. It was approved by the County Commissioners in 1989. The plan laid out basic system infrastructure, primarily related to fire station locations, and was used throughout the following decade as a general guide to decision making. Interestingly, this plan also initiated the general concept of the three-tiered approach to service delivery classes and contained the first service performance objectives by class. That general concept has served the community reasonably well and was used as a foundation for continued deployment planning in this study.
13
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
This master plan also laid the foundation for a seven-year agreement between the City of Gainesville and Alachua County identifying responsibility for the construction of facilities identified in the master plan, regardless of the fact that the facilities might benefit both agencies. This agreement was apparently the source of some ongoing strain between the two governments as each struggled with local fiscal issues while trying to maintain their side of the agreement for expansion of the fire protection system. Analytica Study- 1996 With the expiration of the seven year agreement, a consulting firm was hired by the County to examine and recommend methods for future cooperative fire protection development between the County and Gainesville. The report provided bulleted analysis of several different approaches to the provision of fire protection, with emphasis on cooperative planning and eliminating redundancy. Several models for a merged or consolidated fire protection system between Alachua County and the City of Gainesville were highlighted in the report. The report also provided a recommendation for an interim agreement that would provide “closest unit response”. The agreement became commonly known as the “Designated Assistance Agreement and was formally signed into policy shortly after the collapse of unification talks. The publication of the report led to short-lived talks between the County and the City of Gainesville on unification of their fire protection system. These discussions were ultimately broken off in October of 1996. The Designated Assistance Agreement remained in place. Merger Committees- 1999-2002 Various discussions continued during this period on a “single provider system” for fire protection.
An interlocal agreement was even ratified by Gainesville and Alachua
County authorizing joint efforts in this regard and, as a result, staff work teams began meeting. However, the meetings resulted in no official action on unification and in the summer of 2002 the City of Gainesville withdrew from merger discussion on fire protection.
14
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Non-binding Public Referendum- 2002 In an effort to encourage continuation of efforts, the County placed a non-binding referendum on the election ballot in the fall of 2002 to gauge public opinion for a merger of the County and City of Gainesville fire protection systems. The referendum passed by a significant majority. In response, the County invited the City of Gainesville to reopen the merger discussions. The city responded with a letter in January of 2003 suggesting an immediate return to discussions. The City of Gainesville responded and returned for further discussions, leading to an offer from the City to assume full responsibility for direct provision of fire protection services to the urban areas of the County. Such an agreement did not move forward.
System Overview The following sections of this report are intended to provide a summary of each of the ten agencies involved in the provision of emergency services to the municipalities and unincorporated areas of Alachua County. Each agency has been provided its own report section. Within each, an overview of the organizational structure and governance of the agency is provided, along with information on financing, staffing, service delivery methods and current deployment. In addition, this chapter of the report provides an exhaustive inventory, description, and general condition rating of each of the fire protection infrastructure (facilities and major apparatus) in the agencies. While this study was not intended to be a full agency evaluation of the departments, it includes general observations and an adequate overview of the organizations sufficient to provide the reader with a general understanding and knowledge of the fire protection and emergency medical delivery system currently in place throughout Alachua County. Obviously, the larger departments require more extensive descriptions and information in order to convey the status of their operations.
15
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Throughout these organizational summaries, certain common procedures and analysis are used to provide information useful in benchmarking or comparing features of the agencies studied. The following standard conventions are used in these sections: Population Protected The figures for the population protected by a given agency reflect the recorded population within each individual census tract that falls within the boundaries of the agency’s first-due response area. Each of these population figures is individually calculated for the given agency using geographical information software (GIS). Data sets include the district response area shapefiles provided by Alachua County, census tract shapefiles from the U.S. Census Bureau Tiger™ Mapping Data, and census tract demographic data from the 2000 U.S. Census. Since the boundaries of the primary response districts typically differ from the boundaries of the municipalities, the figures provided for population served will often differ from conventional population figures for a given municipality, community, or unincorporated area. Area Served The figures for the area served by a given agency in square miles reflect the square mileage within the boundaries of the agency’s first-due response area. Each of these figures is individually calculated for the given agency using geographical information software (GIS). Data sets include the district response area shapefiles provided by Alachua County. Since the boundaries of the primary response districts typically differ from the boundaries of the municipalities, the figures provided for area served will often differ from conventional figures for geographic size of a given municipality, community, or unincorporated area. Cost Per $1,000 of Assessed Value The figures for the cost per $1000 of assessed value for a given agency reflect a calculation of that agency’s budgeted expenditures for the current fiscal year1 divided by the assessed value of property protected (in thousands) within the boundaries of the
1
Any “fee for service” revenue, if available, was deducted.
16
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
agency’s first-due response area. The purpose of the figure is to serve as a comparative benchmark of cost to overall property risk and, thus, assessed value is used in the calculation rather than taxable value in order to neutralize the effects of tax exempt properties. Each of these figures is individually calculated for the given agency using geographical information software (GIS). Data sets include the district response area shapefiles and the tax parcel files provided by Alachua County. Since the boundaries of the primary response districts typically differ from the boundaries of the municipalities, and since assessed value is being used rather than taxable value, the figures provided will differ from conventional figures for tax rates. Since the availability of financial data varied from agency to agency and assessed values of many parcels may change from year to year, the results should be considered for general reference and comparative benchmarking only. Some margin of error does exist in this analysis. Cost Per Capita The figures for the cost per capita for a given agency reflect a calculation of that agency’s budgeted expenditures for the current fiscal year1 divided by the population protected (see explanation above) within the boundaries of the agency’s first-due response area. The purpose of the figure is to serve as a comparative benchmark of cost to overall population. Each of these figures is individually calculated for the given agency using geographical information software (GIS). Since the boundaries of the primary response districts typically differ from the boundaries of the municipalities, the figures provided may differ from figures of cost per capita that have been calculated by use of conventional municipal or unincorporated population figures. Since the availability of financial data varied from agency to agency and some census blocks cross jurisdictional lines, the results should be considered for general reference and comparative benchmarking only. Some margin of error does exist in this analysis. Apparatus Condition Assessments The evaluation of existing apparatus was conducted in accordance with a standardized set of assessment ratings used by ESCi. The definitions of these condition assessment ratings may be found in the appendix of the report.
17
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Apparatus Replacement Funding Tables The purpose of the Apparatus Replacement Funding Tables located within each agency summary is to provide, for agency master planning, an objective analysis of long-term funding that will be necessary to maintain current levels of apparatus within each agency. It is intended to provide decision makers with a relative idea of the amount of funding needed, on a current and annualized basis, to replace equipment as it becomes aged. In order to maintain consistency and objectivity, ESCi uses a standardized life expectancy and a standardized replacement cost by apparatus type and use. Both the standardized life expectancy and the standardized replacement costs reflect the experienced opinions of the consultants and actual costs may differ based on specifications at the time of replacement. It should be made clear that reality may dictate that some apparatus will need to be replaced sooner and some may last longer than projected. The tables are not intended to reflect any current replacement plan or program in place within a given agency, nor are they intended as a specific recommendation as to the life expectancy or replacement budget of a given piece of equipment. Current Station Deployment Maps are provided for each agency that display the specific geographic area served by that agency as primary responder and the location of fire and EMS stations within that area. In order to provide a basis for the reader to assess relative distribution, we have plotted modeled travel time from each facility using color-coded street shading. Each map is accompanied by an explanation of the shading and travel times used in that map. The travel time reflects driving time only and is not intended as a display of actual response time (response time analysis is provided elsewhere in the report). The travel time is modeled using geographic information software (GIS) and calculates the total time necessary to travel each individual street segment based on the average travel speed that is assigned to the segment. Travel speeds area assigned based on road type and condition. There are a total of 42 different road type classifications, from footpaths to limited-access freeways. Street segments with speed control devices (speed humps) are calculated at a significantly reduced travel speed. Department summaries are presented in alphabetical order.
18
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Alachua County Fire Rescue (Including the cities of Alachua, Archer, and Hawthorne) General Description Alachua County Fire Rescue is a department of Alachua County, Florida, which is a governmental entity, formed under the laws of the State of Florida and granted authority to levy taxes. The Department’s jurisdiction encompasses the entire County for emergency medical services. Fire and related services are provided directly by ACFR in the unincorporated area of Alachua County, as well as the municipalities of Alachua, Archer, and Hawthorne. Fire and related services are provided indirectly in those areas addressed in partnership contracts with other municipalities and independent volunteer fire companies within the County, and automatic aid response is provided in those areas outlined in the “Designated Assistance Agreement” with the City of Gainesville. The “Designated Assistance Agreement generally provides for the closest services to respond to those areas bordering the City of Gainesville and the County. ACFR provides emergency medical services to a population of over 222,000 in an area of roughly 963 square miles. When those specific geographic areas to which ACFR provides direct, first-due fire response are considered, ACFR provides direct fire protection services to a population2 of approximately 74,504 in an area of roughly 342 square miles3. These services are provided from 13 facilities operated by ACFR and four Gainesville FD stations. The department also maintains support facilities. The department operates a fleet of vehicles including nine engines, one quint, one squad, ten ambulances, and numerous specialty/utility vehicles. The department also maintains several reserve vehicles. There are 219 full time individuals involved in delivering these services to the jurisdiction. The Department is authorized to employ an Emergency Services Director, a Deputy Chief, an Assistant Chief, seven District Chiefs, three Captains, 179 operational
2
Data from 2000 U.S. Census and includes all census tracts within the department’s primary
response area, calculated through GIS. 3
Area calculation from GIS using total primary response area as provided by ACFR.
19
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
personnel, and 27 civilian employees. Of the roster of employees, three are assigned to the Training Division, three are assigned to Fire Prevention, and 44.5 employees are involved in general administration and support.
Primary staffing coverage for all
emergency response is provided by on-duty career firefighters working 24 hour rotating shifts, supported by 41 reserve personnel. In addition to the emergency medical transport service and depending upon the partnership agreements with others the department provides a variety of services including fire suppression, victim rescue, first-responder emergency medical response, technician-level hazardous materials response, code enforcement, and public fire safety education. Structure and Governance Alachua County is a political subdivision formed and established within the laws of the State of Florida. Under these laws, the County is an authorized taxing jurisdiction with the legal right to levy taxes for the purposes of providing fire and emergency services protection. The County’s fire/rescue protection system is established within the County’s charter and further defined in County ordinance. Alachua County has operated under a Commission-Manager form of government since 1927. The County Commission is responsible for setting the County’s budget, enacting new laws, governing land use, and appointing the County Manager and County Attorney. The Commission is comprised of five commissioners. Commissioners must reside within the district from which they are elected; however, all eligible county voters may vote for candidates to fill all five commissioner positions. The County Manager, who is appointed by the County Commission, is responsible for the operations and management of all departments of County government except those controlled by other constitutional officers. The County Manager implements the policy directives of the County Commission. The Director of Emergency Services is appointed and supervised by the County Manager. The Charter defines the responsibilities and duties of the Director of Emergency Services and his authority is delineated by ordinance.
20
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The agency’s organizational chart indicates that the Department is organized in a typical top-down hierarchy. The chart reveals a relatively clear chain of command where each individual member reports to only one supervisor and is aware to whom they are responsible for supervision and accountability. This method of organization encourages structured and consistent lines of communication and prevents positions, tasks, and assignments from being overlooked. The overall goals and objectives of the organization are effectively communicated throughout the organization in a consistent fashion. The organizational structure is charted with clear, designated, operating divisions that permit the core functions of the organization to be the primary focus of specific supervisors and assigned members. While some tasks-level activities may carry over from unit to unit, the primary focus of leadership, management, and budgeting within the unit are clarified by the unit’s key function within the mission statement. Individuals supervising or operating within a specific unit are clear as to the role of the unit and its goals and objectives. ACFR has sufficiently analyzed its mission and functions such that a resulting set of specific agency programs have been established. Organized, structured programs permit better assignment of resources, division of workload, development of future planning, and analysis of service delivery. Departments that have clarified their programs
with
titles,
assigned
leadership,
resources,
budget
appropriations,
performance objectives and accountability are among the most successful. The Director of Emergency Services appears to directly supervise seven other individuals, including the Emergency Manager [currently vacant, to be filled fall of 2004], the Deputy Chief of Operations, the Special Recruit Program Manager, the Assistant Chief of Special Services and the Assistant Director of Administration. The Chief’s span of control falls within the range typically considered normal and acceptable. This is a positive reflection on the agency’s organizational structure, since many times chief officers accept or encourage a span of control that greatly exceeds their ability to maintain good communications and leadership.
21
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The ACFR organizational structure is reflected in the following organization chart provided by the Department:
Alachua County Fire Rescue Services Emergency Services Director
Sr. Staff Assistant
Emergency Manager
Deputy Chief Operations
Program Manager
Special Recruit Program Mananger
Assistant Chief Special Services
Sr. Staff Assist
Sr. Office Asst.
Assist Director Administration
Enhanced 911 Staff Assistant
Assistant Emergency Manager
District Chief [3]
District Chief 40 hour
Prog Mgr Reserves
Mapping Tech Cartographer
Rescue 1 Emergency Management Coordinator
District Chief [3]
Station 15
Program Mgr.
Amb Billing Super. Captain Trg [3] Amb Billing Tech.
Rescue 2
Station 16 Accounting Clerk [2] Health/Safety Off
Rescue 3
Station 17
Rescue 8
Station 19
Fiscal Supervisor Fiscal Assistant Fire Marshal
Rescue 9
Station 20
Station 12
Station 21
Station 24
Station 27
Station 25
Station 28
Accounting Clerk Supply Whse Mgr
Fire Inspector
Stock Clerk [2] Pub Ed Coordinator
Plan Reviewer/Insp Dept Network Analy
The job descriptions for all current positions within the Department are reasonably up-todate and accurately reflect the typical individual duties, responsibilities and activities. The County currently maintains three collective bargaining agreements with certain classes of employees within the organization that clarify the salary, benefits, and many working conditions under which the employees in the classification will operate. Seven District Chiefs and three Training Captains are in an IAFF supervisory unit, and all employees in the rank of Lieutenant and below in a general IAFF unit. Certain civilian employees of the department are included in a bargaining unit for governmental employees. The Insurance Services Office, Inc., (ISO) of Marlton, NJ, reviews the fire protection capabilities of Florida fire departments. Communities receive a Public Protection Classification ranging from one to ten with one being ideal protection and 10 being no
22
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
protection. The Public Protection Classification primarily affects the cost of fire insurance for most properties. To at least some degree, the lower the classification, the lower the cost of fire insurance4. The Insurance Services Office graded Alachua County’s unincorporated area, fire districts, and outside protected areas in February 1995 with updates in July of 1999. The resulting grading classifications are as follows: Table 1: Alachua County ISO Ratings Summary
Community Alachua Alachua OPA Archer Archer OPA Cross Creek FD Gainesville Gainesville OPA Hawthorne Hawthorne High Springs High Springs OPA Jonesville FD La Crosse FD Melrose FD Micanopy Micanopy OPA Newberry Newberry OPA Waldo Waldo OPA Windsor FD
Class 6/9 6/9 7/9 7/9 9/9 3 4/9 7 6/9 6/9 6/9 7/9 9/9 7/9 6/9 9/9 5/9 6/9 6 6/9 9/9
Source: ISO Note: Lower class applies to properties within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant and five road miles of a fire station. All other properties within five road miles are in higher classes. Properties beyond five road miles of a fire station are class 10
4
See additional comments on ISO rating effect on insurance costs in the “Efficiency Strategies”
section of this report.
23
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The process of strategic planning involves clarifying an organization’s mission, articulating its vision for the future, and specifying the values within which it will conduct itself. ACFR has completed several components of formal strategic planning that involve various members of the organization charting clear direction for its future. The Department’s mission statement as posted on their website is as follows: Mission Statement The Department of Fire/Rescue is charged with the public health and safety through the provision of the following services:
•
Emergency Management, which includes mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery from all threats (natural and man-made) to the citizens, environment, and property of Alachua County.
•
Office of Enhanced 911 which coordinates and develops the data base for the Public Safety Answering points (PSAPs) of Alachua County's E-911 System.
•
Emergency Medical Services, which provides countywide advanced life support, rescue, and ambulance ground transportation to the sick or injured citizens and visitors to Alachua County.
•
Fire Protection Services, which provides fire suppression, prevention, life safety, fire investigation, and coordination of fire contract services throughout Alachua County in the unincorporated areas.
Alachua County Fire/Rescue Services delivers emergency services at the scene of incidents throughout Alachua County. The unique requirement of emergency services calls for a high degree of coordination and cooperation as well as individual competence, judgment, and dedication. The Department strives to provide safety for each worker rendering emergency services, and strives to provide a healthy environment for development of the individual worker. The employees of Fire Rescue are committed to providing excellence in emergency care and fire protection/prevention. We take pride in providing these services to the citizens of Alachua County. We believe in treating the citizen with the utmost respect and being sensitive to their individual needs. We believe in going the extra mile without being asked.
ACFR’s current goals, objectives, deliverable outcomes, and timelines are delineated, through its “Alachua County Department of Fire Rescue Services – Five Year Strategic Plan – Draft 1.4 (For working purposes only)” addressing FYs 99 through 04. This document is part of the budget process.
24
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Departmental goals and objectives for this period are as follows: Goals 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Establish and adopt a funding mechanism for the delivery of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services. Adopt County-wide Fire and Emergency Medical Advance Life Support (ALS) Response Standard of six (6) minutes or less to 90% of all emergency incidents. Improved I.S.O. ratings. Countywide standardization and compatibility of equipment and apparatus. Countywide standardization of training, skills, knowledge, and performance. Countywide standardization of fire and EMS response. Objectives
1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Establish and adopt benchmarks for staffing levels a. Responses/year b. Staff qualifying rural departments with dual trained and certified personnel c. Establish and adopt command staff span of control i. Recommend one commander/shift/six stations Utilize existing rural departments facility and apparatus infrastructure Strategically relocate three (3) ambulances Add two (2) twenty-four hour ambulances Add one (1) new twelve hour ambulance Completion of current Capital Improvement Plan Strategically relocate one existing fire rescue facilty New facility with City of Newberry at SR26 & SW 170 Street New facility at Spring Hill Development Add one person per shift at Alachua and Jonesville Stations Eastern Alachua County regional ALS response program with Melrose Fire Department, Bradford and Putnam County Deliverable Outcomes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Enhanced community volunteer participation Improved community ownership and partnership Established goal and benchmarks for long term service delivery Reduced countywide patient mortality and morbidity statistics Improved and enhanced pre-hospital patient care Improved unit response times and unit utilization rations Seamless Countywide Fire/Rescue/EMS system 8. Regionalized emergency services resources
ACFR Department strives for a 60 second turnout time (the time it takes for units to leave the station once dispatched) and a six-minute response time (the time it takes to arrive on the scene of the emergency once dispatched). The response time goal is comprised of a maximum of one minute in the station and five minutes drive time.
25
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The County maintains Administrative and personnel policies. Standard Operating Guidelines (SOG’s) are separate, stand alone documents that are made available to all members for review and training. These SOG’s are updated regularly. It is extremely important that there be a clear understanding of critical issues facing the Department. Without this understanding, Department leadership cannot be prepared to face these issues. The enunciation of critical issues to employees and members increases their awareness of the organization’s priorities and assists them in becoming focused on solutions. Exploration of critical issues should be pursued through a formal strategic planning process. However representatives of the County and members of the ACFR identified the following critical issues: 1.
Annexation
2.
The aging emergency fleet
3.
The perceived uncertainty of the future of the Department
Future challenges identified included: 1.
Annexation
2.
Funding needed for an expanding service delivery demand.
Quality communications is an achievable goal for any organization, but one that can be elusive. With administrative and support personnel assigned to a 40 hour per week schedule and operational personnel operating from multiple stations on a rotating shift, communications can be difficult at best. The County government and the Department strive to keep the lines of communications open and maintain an up-to-date website. Records management is a critical function to any organization. A variety of uses are made of written records and, therefore, their integrity must be protected. Florida State law requires access to and maintenance of fire department documents and data. Clear procedures are in place to provide for public records access.
26
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Paper records are adequately secured with passage or container locks with limited access. Important computer files are backed-up to a secure location on a regular and consistent basis. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations are complied with. The Department utilizes records management software to enter and store incident information required by the State Fire Marshal where the ACFR is responsible. The system is in compliance with the requirements of the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). Training records are maintained on computer permitting easy retrieval of accurate records on training attendance, certification status, and subject matter. Code enforcement activities and occupancy records are maintained in an effective database to permit analysis of prevention activities, community risks, and trends. Personnel records are complete and up-to-date, and maintained in a manner that protects private medical information of employees. Records are maintained on employment history, discipline, commendations, work assignments, injuries, exposures and leave time. Financial activities, including budgets, expenditures, revenues, purchase orders, and other encumbrances are kept in a financial records management system permitting consistent and up-to-date monitoring of all financial transactions and accounts.
27
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Finance An analysis of available financial information for the organization indicates total budgeted expenditures for fire protection5 of $7,710,064. Revenues used for fire protection are from the Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) Fund, but also include nearly $628,000 in contractual funds received for fire protection in the municipalities of Archer, Alachua, and Hawthorne. Based on the total of parcel values served in the entire primary response6 area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost per $1000 of assessed value is approximately $2.11. Based on the population of the entire primary response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost is approximately $103.49 per resident. Total budgeted expenditures for EMS were $8,172,559. Expenditures for EMS transport services are approximately $37.51 per capita. Revenues used for EMS are from the General Fund, but also include $4,289,176 in revenue received primarily for EMS service fees invoiced to the patient or the insurance provider. Costs for EMS transport service availability (after revenue) are approximately $17.70 per capita. Capital Assets and Resources As stated earlier, the Alachua County Fire Rescue Department operates 13 fire and EMS facilities, some owned by the County and others owned by the municipalities in which they are located. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the facilities
5
From ACFR Program Budget documents. Excludes budgeted expenditures for EMS, E-911, the
Special Recruitment Program, Emergency Management, and payments to other agencies for provision of fire protection in the County’s contract districts, nor does it include any payments to the City of Gainesville under the Designated Assistance Agreement. The amount show includes budget amount designated for “Fund 164 Operating Reserve”, described as an annual budget amount to assist in meeting expenditures in disasters. 6
Primary service area includes parcels and populations within the first-due response area of
ACFR stations, including Alachua City, Hawthorne, and Archer.
28
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Alachua County Rescue Station # 1 This facility is a rental unit in a multi-family development. This type of the building presents some concerns related to public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. This station is not well maintained. Station #1 has a relatively upto-date kitchen is not very neat and has very little room. An exercise room is equipped located off the day room. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
This station does not meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
This is a leased apartment, thus the agency had no control over construction.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detectors installed. No auxiliary generator to power the apartment or equipment.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted.
Code Compliance:
Building is not fully ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station has one bathroom, which can accommodate male or female, with a single shower but no locker room facilities. Both Paramedics are expected to share one small bedroom. Insufficient space for all necessary functions.
•
Efficiency:
Not designed for emergency services. Not enough room for staff to work efficiently. Alachua County Rescue Station # 2 This facility is a rental unit. This type of the building presents some concerns related to public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. This station is not well maintained. Station #2 has a relatively up-to-date kitchen, but is not very neat and has very little room. An exercise area is equipped and located off the day room. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
This station does not meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
This is a leased apartment, thus the agency had no control over construction.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detectors installed. No auxiliary generator to power the apartment or equipment.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted.
Code Compliance:
Building is not fully ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station has one bathroom, which can accommodate male or female, with a single shower but no locker room facilities. Both Paramedics are expected to share one small bedroom. Insufficient space for all necessary functions.
•
Efficiency:
Not designed for emergency services. Not enough room for staff to work efficiently.
29
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Alachua County Rescue Station # 8 This modern station consists of a two drive-through apparatus bays. There are no concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station appears to meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detection and sprinkler systems installed. No auxiliary generator to power the building.
•
Environment:
No problems noted. Equipped with an automatic exhaust system for vehicles. There is no ventilated gear room, turn out gear is stored in a openly in apparatus bay.
•
Code Compliance:
Building is ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker room, and sleeping quarters. Kitchen and day room have ample room for the staff. An exercise room is well equipped and located in bay area. Station is well maintained.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
Alachua County Rescue Station # 9 This older building consists of no bay or shelter areas in the front this building appears to be a temporary structure. The age of the building presents many concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
This station does not meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design appears to have led to high maintenance costs. Kitchen and day room are adequate for staffing, but dorms are not.
• • •
Safety:
No auxiliary generator power.
Environment:
No problems noted.
Code Compliance:
Building is not fully ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker room, and sleeping quarters. Kitchen and day room have ample room for the staff. A well-equipped exercise area is located in the day room. Station is well maintained and clean.
•
Efficiency:
Limited efficiency with this type of modular environment.
30
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Alachua County Fire Station # 12 This modern station built in 1994 consists of a two drive through apparatus bays. There are no concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station appears to meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multiuser, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detection system installed, sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power. Station has a keyless entry system.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker room, and sleeping quarters. Kitchen and day room have ample room for the staff. The station has a well-equipped exercise room. Station is well maintained and clean. Floor plan fits the needs of today’s firefighters.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
Alachua County Fire Station # 15 Built in 1998 and consisting of two apparatus bays, presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station appears to meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multiuser, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detection system installed, sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power. Station has a keyless entry system.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker room, and sleeping quarters. Kitchen and day room have ample room for the staff. An exercise room located in the bay area is well-equipped. Station is well maintained and clean. Floor plan fits the needs of today’s firefighters.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
31
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Alachua County Fire Station # 16 This modern station built in 1993 consists of four apparatus bays, presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station appears to meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detection system installed, sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power. Station has a keyless entry system.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker room, and sleeping quarters. Kitchen and day room have ample room for the staff. The station has a well-equipped exercise room. Station is well maintained and clean. Floor plan fits the needs of today’s firefighters.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
Alachua County Fire Station # 17 Built in the mid 80’s and consisting of two apparatus bays, and a detached prefab living quarters which presents a few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
This station does not fully meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design will likely lead to high future maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detection system installed, sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building has been updated to ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station is small and has limited room for firefighters to enjoy any privacy. Station is well maintained and clean. Insufficient space for all necessary functions.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
32
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Alachua County Fire Station # 19 This modern station built in 1990 consists of two apparatus bays, presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station appears to meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multiuser, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detection system installed, sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker room and sleeping quarters. Kitchen and day room have ample room for the staff. The station has a well-equipped exercise room. Station is well maintained and clean. Floor plan fits the needs of today’s firefighters.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
Alachua County Rescue Station # 20 This type of the building presents some concerns related to public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. This station is well maintained. This station has a relatively upto-date kitchen with very little room. An exercise area is equipped and located off the day room. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
This station appears to meet most of the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life. However, flexibility is limited due to the design of the single apparatus bay.
• • • •
Construction:
No problems noted
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detectors installed. No auxiliary generator.
Environment:
No problems noted.
Code Compliance:
Building is fully ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker room, and sleeping quarters. Kitchen and day room have ample room for the staff. The station has a well-equipped exercise room. Station is well maintained and clean.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted, however the design provides limited flexibility in apparatus deployment and staffing for the future..
33
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Alachua County Fire Station # 21 This facility consists of six apparatus bays and a detached, prefab living quarters which presents a few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
This station does not meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Modular-style construction used to convert non-staffed facility for 24-hour use.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detection system installed, sprinkler system installed in quarters. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is not ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station is small and has limited room for firefighters to enjoy any privacy. Station is well maintained and clean. Insufficient space for all necessary functions.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
Alachua County Fire Station # 25 The Hawthorne Fire Station has clean, professional facilities and adequate space for the staff. It also provides a satellite office for the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office. Consisting of four apparatus bays, presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
This station appears to meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs. Some leaks in the roof.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detection system installed. No auxiliary generator power. Station has a keyless entry system.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building appears fit for ADA compliance.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker room, and sleeping quarters. Kitchen and day room have ample space for the staff. The station has a well-equipped exercise area in the bay space. Station is well maintained and clean. Floor plan fits the needs of today’s firefighters.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted..
34
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Alachua County Fire Station # 27 This fire station is manned by ACFR, along with volunteers from Archer Fire Department. The facility is a modern fire station with adequate space for the staff. It also provides a satellite office for the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office. Built in 2000 and consisting of five apparatus bays, presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station appears to meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. Fire detection system installed, sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power. Station has a keyless entry system.
•
Environment:
No problems noted
•
Code Compliance:
Building is ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker room, and sleeping quarters. Kitchen and day room have ample room for the staff. The station has a well-equipped exercise room. Station is well maintained and clean. Floor plan fits the needs of today’s firefighters.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
35
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The department operates several pieces of emergency apparatus. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the primary response apparatus. Definitions of the condition assessment ratings can be found in the appendix section of the report. Meets Seats NFPA / KKK
Unit
Year
Condition
Pump GPM
Tank Size
R-1
2003
Excellent
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
Well Equipped, no problems noted
R-2
2003
Excellent
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
Well Equipped, no problems noted
R-3
2003
Excellent
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
Well Equipped, no problems noted
2003
Excellent
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
Well Equipped, no problems noted
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
Well Equipped, no problems noted
R-8
Remarks
Excellent R-9 2003
R-45
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
2002
New Per ACFR
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
E-12
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
1994
Good Per ACFR
1250
750
4
Yes
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
B-12
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
1998
Good Per ACFR
N/A
200
2
N/A
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
36
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Meets Seats NFPA / KKK
Unit
Year
Condition
Pump GPM
Tank Size
T-12
1989
Fair
300
4000
2
Yes
Stored Outside , Used for Wildland Fires
E-15
1991
Fair
1250
750
4
Yes
Reconditioned within the last two years
R-15
2003
Excellent
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
Well Equipped, no problems noted
T-15
1998
Fair
N/A
4000
2
Yes
Stored Outside , Used for Wildland Fires
B-15
1998
Good
N/A
200
2
N/A
Standard brush unit
Q-16
1993
Good
1500
400
4
Yes
Well equipped and maintained
1990
Poor Per ACFR
2
No
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
S-16
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
1985 Serviceable
E-3417
E-17
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
1999
Good Per ACFR
Remarks
1250
1000
4
No
Older Unit used as a reserve
1250
750
4
Yes
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
37
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Meets Seats NFPA / KKK
Unit
Year
Condition
Pump GPM
Tank Size
T-17
1989
Fair
300
4000
2
Stored Outside , Used for Wildland Fires
B-3358
2000
Excellent
N/A
200
2
Newer Brush Unit. Station 17
R-17
2003
Excellent
N/A
N/A
N/A
Remarks
Yes
Well Equipped, no problems noted
E-19
1998
Good
1250
750
4
Yes
Well Equipped, no major problems noted Officer door been repaired many times
R-19
2003
Excellent
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
Well Equipped, no problems noted
2003
Excellent
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
Well Equipped, no problems noted
2002
Good
1250
750
4
Yes
R-20
E-21
Well Equipped, no problems
38
Alachua County, Florida
Unit
E-421
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Condition
Pump GPM
Tank Size
1988 Serviceable
1250
1000
Year
B-21
1988 Serviceable
R-25
2003
Excellent
Meets Seats NFPA / KKK
4
Remarks
No
Older Unit used as a reserve
0
1000
2
Yes
Older unit, doors stick, rust Unit 3424
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
Well Equipped, no problems noted
No
Equipped with basic tools, no problems noted
E3406
1990
Fair
750
500
2
B3458
2000
Excellent
N/A
200
2
Newer Brush Unit. Unit 3458 Station 25
2
Equipped with basic tools, no problems noted
E-25
E-27
1990
1993
Fair
Good
750
1250
500
1000
2
No
Yes
E-271, Equipped with basic tools, no problems noted (City of Archer)
39
Alachua County, Florida
Unit
E-27
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Year
1993
Condition
Good
Pump GPM
1250
Tank Size
1000
Meets Seats NFPA / KKK
2
Yes
Remarks
E-272, Equipped with basic tools, no problems noted (City of Archer)
S-27
1984
Fair
N/A
N/A
4
N/A
S-275. First responder EMS & MVA (City of Archer)
B-27
2002
Excellent
N/A
200
2
N/A
Newer Brush Unit (City of Archer)
The following chart list the primary heavy apparatus used by the department, excluding smaller commercial-style utility or staff vehicles. It includes current age, life expectancy, and roughly estimated replacement-funding requirements.
40
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 2: ACFR Apparatus Replacement Funding Tables
Unit
Year
Life
Replacement Cost
Annual Fund Contribution
Current Cash Requirement
Rescue 1
2003
15
$125,000
$8,333
$8,333
Rescue 2
2003
15
$125,000
$8,333
$8,333
Rescue 3
2003
15
$125,000
$8,333
$8,333
Rescue 8
2003
15
$125,000
$8,333
$8,333
Rescue 9
2003
15
$125,000
$8,333
$8,333
Rescue 45
2002
15
$125,000
$8,333
$16,660
Engine 12
1994
15
$175,000
$11,666
$116,660
Tanker 12
1989
15
$150,000
$10,000
$150,000
Brush- 12
1998
10
$65,000
$6,500
$39,000
Engine 15
1991
20
$275,000
$13,750
$178,750
Rescue 15
2003
15
$125,000
$8,333
$8,333
Brush- 12
1998
10
$65,000
$6,500
$39,500
Tanker 15
1998
15
$150,000
$10,000
$65,000
Quint 16
1993
20
$570,000
$28,500
$313,500
Squad-16
1990
10
$85,000
$8,500
$85,000
Engine 3417
1985
20
$275,000
$13,750
$261,250
Engine 17
1999
20
$275,000
$13,750
$68,750
Tanker 17
1989
15
$150,000
$10,000
$150,000
Rescue 17
2002
15
$125,000
$8,333
$16,660
Brush 3358
2000
10
$65,000
$6,500
$26,000
Engine 19
1998
15
$175,000
$11,666
$69,999
Rescue 19
2003
15
$125,000
$8,333
$8,333
Engine 21
2002
15
$175,000
$11,666
$23,332
Engine 3421
1988
20
$275,000
$13,750
$220,000
Tanker 21
1988
15
$175,000
$11,666
$175,000
Rescue 20
2003
15
$125,000
$8,333
$8,333
Rescue 25
2003
15
$125,000
$8,333
$8,333
Engine 25
1990
15
$175,000
$11,666
$163,324
Engine 3406
1990
15
$175,000
$11,666
$163,324
Engine 3421
1988
20
$275,000
$13,750
$220,000
Brush-3458
2000
10
$65,000
$6,500
$26,000
TOTALS
$323,409
$2,662,706
41
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The following table applies to equipment owned by the City of Archer.
Unit
Year
Life
Replacement Cost
Annual Fund Contribution
Current Cash Requirement
Engine 272
1989
15
$175,000
$11,666
$163,000
Engine 271
1992
15
$175,000
$11,666
$139,992
Brush-27
2002
10
$65,000
$6,500
$13,000
Squad-27
1984
10
$85,000
$8,500
$85,000
TOTALS
$38,332
$400,992
It should be noted that these replacement funding charts represents funding levels needed for a capital replacement fund that is both adequate and up-to-date, assuring cash is available for purchase at the expected time of replacement. This is not meant to exclude other funding methods from consideration. Staffing ACFR uses career staffing, supplemented by reserve personnel, to provide service to the community.
Administrative functions are generally the responsibility of the staff
officers, with support provided by clerical employees. Staffing for emergency response to fire, EMS, and other emergency incidents is a blend of both career and reserve uniformed personnel. Career personnel work in 24 hours on, 48 hours off rotational shifts (Shifts “A,” “B,” and “C”). The following table7 demonstrates the staffing levels (in full-time equivalents or FTE’s) for all personnel assigned to ACFR in all divisions.
7
All staffing information taken from the ACFR “Position Control Roster”, dated 8/25/04
42
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 3: ACFR Employment Roster- All Programs ACFR Employment Roster (All Programs) Position Title FTE's Accounting Clerk (Amb Billing) 2 Accounting Clerk (Fiscal) 1 Ambulance Billing Supervisor 1 Ambulance Billing Technician 3 Assistant Chief-Special Services 1 Assistant Director of Adm Suppt 1 Assistant Emergency Manager 1 Asst to Cty Mgr, Special Recr Mgr 1 Captain/Training 3 Cartographer 1 Computer Map Technician 3 Dept. Network Analyst 1 Deputy Chief/Operations 1 District Chief 7 Driver Operator 3 Driver/Operator 18 Driver/Operator/Paramedic 10 Emergency 911 Coordinator 1 Emergency Manager 1 Emergency Manager Coordinator 1 Emergency Services Director 1 EMT/Driver (FF/EMT) 1 Fire Inspector 1 Fire Marshal 1 Fire Recruit 4 Firefighter/EMT 55 Firefighter/Paramedic 9 Fiscal Assistant 1 Health Safety Officer 1 Lieutenant 14 Lieutenant/Paramedic 10 Paramedic Attendant 5 Paramedic/Attendant/Firefighter 37 Paramedic/Driver (FF/Paramedic) 2 Plans Review/Inspector 1 Program Manager 1 Program Manager/Wildland Mitigation 1 Program Manager/Operations 1 Program Manager/Reserves 1 Public Education-Prog Coord. 1 Senior Administrative Assistant 1 Senior Office Assistant 2 Senior Staff Assistant 2 Staff Assistant 1 Stock Clerk 2 Warehouse Manager 1 TOTAL 218
43
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Administrative and Support Staffing An efficient and effective administrative and support staff is critical the success of a fire department. With insufficient oversight, planning, documentation, training, regulation, and maintenance, the operational entities of the Department will fail any emergency test. Like any other parts of the organization, administration and support require appropriate resources to function properly. The following chart identifies the Department’s administrative staff complement. For the purposes of assisting in an “apples to apples” comparison, the ACFR programs of Emergency Management, E-911, and the Special Recruitment Program have been removed from consideration, leaving the personnel associated with provision or support of fire and emergency medical services only.
44
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 4: ACFR Admin / Support Staffing Table ACFR Fire and EMS Programs Administrative and Support Administration and Support Position FTE's Emergency Services Director 1 Accounting Clerk (Amb Billing) 2 Accounting Clerk (Fiscal) 1 Ambulance Billing Supervisor 1 Ambulance Billing Technician 3 Assistant Chief-Special Services 1 Assistant Director of Adm Suppt 1 Dept. Network Analyst 1 Fiscal Assistant 1 Health Safety Officer 1 Captain/Training 3 Program Manager 1 Program Manager/Wildlife Mitigation Officer 1 Program Manager/Operations 1 Program Manager/Reserves 1 Public Education-Prog Coord. 1 Senior Administrative Assistant 1 Senior Office Assistant 2 Senior Staff Assistant 2 Stock Clerk 2 Warehouse Manager 1 Fire Inspector 1 Fire Marshal 1 Plans Review/Inspector 1 TOTAL Administration and Support 32
Again, for purposes of benchmarking the fire suppression and EMS programs with other similar agencies, only the positions assigned to those programs were considered. Statistically, ACFR enjoys an 18.6% ratio of administrative/support personnel to operational staff. Operational Staffing It takes an adequate and well-trained staff of emergency service responders to put the apparatus and equipment to its best use in mitigating an emergency incident. Insufficient staffing at the emergency scene decreases the effectiveness of the response and increases the risk of injury to those at the scene.
45
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The ACFR operational staff complement is identified below: Table 5: ACFR Operations Staffing Table
ACFR Fire and EMS Programs Operations Operations Position FTE's Deputy Chief/Operations 1 District Chief 7 Driver/Operator 21 Driver/Operator/Paramedic 10 Firefighter/EMT 56 Firefighter/Paramedic 9 Paramedic/Driver (FF/Paramedic) 2 Lieutenant 14 Lieutenant/Paramedic 10 Paramedic Attendant 5 Paramedic/Attendant/Firefighter 37 TOTAL Operations 172 Operational personnel are assigned to one of three 24-hour rotating shifts (24 on 48 off). Personnel are assigned as outlined in the following assignment chart. Table 6: ACFR Operations Staff Deployment ACFR Authorized Field Operations Assignments Assignment Number Of Personnel Deputy Chief 1 Staff District Chief 1 District five District Chief 3 Rescue 1 Attendant 3 Driver 3 Rescue 2 Attendant 3 Driver 3 Rescue 3 Attendant 3 Driver 3 Station 8 – Rescue Attendant/FF 3 Firefighter 3 Station 9 - Rescue Attendant/FF 3 Firefighter 3 Station 12 – Engine (& Rescue) Lieutenant 3 Driver Operator 3 Firefighter 3
46
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
ACFR Authorized Field Operations Assignments Assignment Number Of Personnel Station 24 – Engine Driver Operator 1 Station 25 – Engine & Rescue Lieutenant 3 Attendant/FF 3 Driver Operator 3 Firefighter 3 Non-Medical Transfer EMT 1 Staffing Pool Attendant/FF 9 Driver/Operator 3 Firefighter 12 District Six District Chief 3 Station 15 – Engine & Rescue Lieutenant 3 Attendant/FF 3 Driver Operator 3 Firefighter 6 Station 16- Quint, Squad & Rescue Lieutenant 3 Driver Operator 6 Firefighter 9 Attendant/FF 3 Station 17 – Engine & Rescue Lieutenant 3 Attendant/FF 3 Driver/Operator 3 Firefighter [3 Newberry FFs] Station 19 – Engine & Rescue Lieutenant 3 Attendant/FF 3 Driver/Operator 3 Firefighter 6 Station 20 – Rescue Attendant/FF 3 Firefighter 3 Station 21 – Engine Lieutenant 3 Driver Operator 3 Firefighter 3 Station 27 – Engine Lieutenant 3 Driver Operator 3 Station 28 Firefighter/PM Driver 3 TOTAL 172
47
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The chart below delineates the ACFR minimum staffing by type of apparatus. Other specialty vehicles are “cross-staffed” as needed. Table 7: ACFR Minimum Staffing By Apparatus Type ACFR Minimum Staffing By Type Of Apparatus Apparatus Minimum Staffing Engine 2 /3 Quint 3 Rescue [Ambulance] 2 Squad 2
An initial analysis of the number emergency services staff begins by making a comparison of available emergency services personnel to other communities of similar size and nature. Using the National Fire Protection Association benchmark data from the 2002 U.S. Fire Department Profile, we compare total number of firefighters (response personnel assigned to the Fire 5480 budget program) employed by ACFR at 1.25 firefighters per 1,000 population protected8 to the regional median of 1.56 firefighters per 1,000 population protected for the Southern region of U.S., communities of 50,000 to 100,000. This indicates that ACFR has a lower ratio of firefighters to population when compared to mean levels for the region. The figure, however, does not consider reserve firefighters who often supplement on-duty staff.
Service Delivery Incident Preparation and Management It is critically important that firefighters and command staff have good and accurate information readily at hand to identify hazards, direct operations, and use built-in fire resistive features. This can only be accomplished by building familiarization tours, developing pre-incident plans, and conducting tactical exercises either on-site or by tabletop simulations.
8
Figure includes firefighters only (through MSTU fund) and uses population figures from census
tracts inside primary response boundaries for ACFR direct.
48
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Completing pre-incident plans should continue to be a ACFR priority. As defined by Department SOG’s, Operations personnel are assigned pre-incident plans in their first due response areas annually for update and/or completion. These plans and drawings are compiled on Department forms and are available for training purposes. ACFR utilizes the NIIMS-ICS incident command system and is transitioning to the newer NIMS system adopted by the Department of Homeland Security. A county-wide mutual aid system is in place, with automatic aid, and a formal statewide mutual aid plan has been promulgated by the Florida Fire Chiefs’ Association, including a deployment scheme. ACFR utilizes their incident command system on all incidents. Their personnel accountability system is manual and exercised on major incidents only. The department plans to implement an electronic system in the future. The department participates in a “Designated Assistance Agreement” with the City of Gainesville, generally providing for the closest services to respond to those areas bordering the City and the County. The response area includes both urban and suburban areas. Automatic mutual aid within the County is facilitated within Department policies and through the Combined Communications Center.
Standards of Coverage ACFR provides a “Fire Rescue Response For Dispatchers” call type matrix that establishes the protocol for what resources will be dispatched to different types of calls. This protocol is a comprehensive list of 58 call types specifying the response protocol for “Alachua County Fire Rescue,” Gainesville Fire Rescue,” and “Alachua County Fire Rescue Rural.” The following chart identifies the initial response by ACFR to basic emergency types in the County:
49
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan Table 8: ACFR Current Standard Of Cover
Current ACFR Initial Response To Basic Incident Types Type of Call Units Dispatched Number of Personnel Building Fire 2E+1TW+1SQ+1R+DC 12-14 Rural Building Fire 3ST+1R+1DC 8-11 Brush Fire 1E+1BR 4-5 Rural Brush Fire 2ST 4-6 EMS 1ALS-BLS+1R 4-5 Trash/Vehicle Fire 1E 2-3 E=Engine, TW=Ladder or Quint, SQ=Squad, R=Rescue, DC=District Chief
ACFR, through its response/dispatch protocol matrix, has provided initial response resources slightly short of the Commission of Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) initial response examples for moderate fire hazards. Initial EMS incident are generally met. ACFR provides an appropriate mechanism to rapidly expand resources as needed.
Emergency Medical Services Emergency medical services are provided by ACFR through a one or two-tiered response system. ACFR provides the first response advanced life support resource and patient transport. The Department provides for initial ALS-BLS level EMS first response, depending on the location of the incident, with ALS transport Countywide. Medical direction and formal quality assurance is provided under the supervision of Dr. Peter J. Gianas, who is the countywide System Medical Director. Dr. Gianas also coordinates with the City of Gainesville’s Medical Director. Formal medical protocols are provided to and followed by certified ACFR personnel. ACFR continues to enjoy a very successful ambulance fee billing and collection rate considered outstanding by industry standards.
Deployment Strategy / Response Time Capabilities Alachua Fire and Rescue maintains thirteen facilities within its response area. The following map displays the total primary response area of the agency, as well as the station locations. In addition, street segments shaded in red demonstrate those areas within a six-minute travel time of the station, while those shaded in green demonstrate those areas within an eight-minute travel time. Non-shaded street segments are beyond an eight-minute travel time.
50
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 2: ACFR Current Fire Station Deployment
[ -------------
ACFR fire station Streets within six travel minutes of a fire station Streets within eight travel minutes of a fire station
51
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
We also provide a map with the locations of ACFR’s rescue units, as shown below. Figure 3: ACFR Rescue Unit Deployment
RESCUE 20
\ &
RESCUE 8
RESCUE 9
STATION 16
STATION 17
\ &
RESCUE 1
\ & \ &
\ &
\ &
\ &
\ & \ & RESCUE 3
\ &
STATION 15
^
STATION 19
\ &
RESCUE 2 STATION 25
Rescue station
Training and Competencies The ACFR Training Program has a full time staff comprised of three Captains reporting to the Assistant Chief of Special Services. Basic fire training references the IFSTA standards and curriculum adopted by the State of Florida. Emergency medical training references medical control protocols and teaching standards recognized by the State of Florida. The instructional standards for both fire and EMS programs are widely recognized and designed to meet or exceed nationally recognized benchmarks and practices.
52
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
All ACFR personnel must be firefighter certified within twelve months and paramedics within three years. “Multiplicity” hiring is utilized by the Department, taking advantage of individual’s previous training and experience. Minimum physical ability and skills testing is conducted at entry to the Department. Minimum skills testing is conducted for promotions. The Training Bureau, with its limited staff and budget, does an admirable job in accomplishing the Department’s training goals and objectives. The ACFR Training Program for the previous calendar year provided the following training hours
Category EMS Training Fire Training Company Officer Orientation/New Employee Reserve Unit Training Outside Agency Training Total
ACFR Training Hours For FY2003 Classroom Hours 304 120 In-Station 130 242 292
Individual Hours 2288 953 7920 3120 2904 17185
Public Education ACFR provides an extensive life and fire safety outreach program to number of different audiences across the County. The following information provides a summary of these programs: Fire Prevention • Fire prevention programs are scheduled from September through February • ACFR address approximately 15,000 children in public and private schools • A “teacher packet” comprised of a parent letter, an escape plan grid, and a home safety check list is provided to each classroom • Engine crews see 500 families during “Family Nights” at local McDonald’s restaurants • Home safety tee shirts are provided by the Safe Kids Coalition at Shand’s Teaching Hospital • Lowe’s of Gainesville provides smoke detectors to citizens in need • Over 1,000 folks attend the annual Mall Expo held in October • Alachua County Quilters Guild provides blankets and quilts for those families who lost their homes to fire Car Seat Education • ACFR personnel are trained to assist with car seat safety checks • Two car seat checks are held per month with 20-30 people in attendance
53
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Risk Watch • Risk Watch presentations are conducted in 200 classrooms • Teachers receive “train the trainer” instruction for the Risk Watch Program • ACFR partners with Safe and Drug Free Schools • Visual aids are provided for teachers Falls Prevention • Falls prevention presentations are made to over 40 groups annually • Seniors are provided falls, fire safety, nutrition and home escape planning information Mall Events • Emergency Medical Week is conducted annually with more than 1,000 attending • Injury prevention material and free blood pressure checks provided • Getting ready for hurricane awareness information provided to more than 1,300 people Bicycle Education • Education provided to more than 6,000 students annually • Bike helmet fittings provided • Safety rodeos conducted
Fire Marshal’s Office The ACFR Fire Marshal’s Office is staffed with the Fire Marshal, one Fire Inspector, and one Plan Reviewer/Inspector under the direction of the Assistant Chief of Special Services.
54
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
During CY 2003 the Office conducted the following inspections and plan reviews: ACFR Fire Marshal’s Office Inspections and Plan Reviews for CY2003 Occupancies Initial Inspections Follow up Inspections ALF 11 5 Mercantile 10 1 Business (Medical) 6 0 Day Care 35 33 Schools 30 6 Complaints 3 3 Locked Down Facilities 7 0 Residential 6 0 Laboratory 1 0 Assembly 8 0 Hotels/Motels 2 0 Restaurants 2 0 Business Offices 5 4 Bed & Breakfasts 2 2 Total 128 54 New Construction Insps. 500 Plans Reviewed 250
Hazardous Materials Mitigation Until June 2000, the City of Gainesville had the only local government hazardous materials response team in North Central Florida. The cities of Gainesville, Starke, and Lake City, and the counties of Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Union, and Gilchrist have entered into inter-local agreement creating the first multi-county, multi-city hazardous materials response team in the State of Florida.
55
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Cross Creek Volunteer Fire Department General Description The Cross Creek Volunteer Fire Department is a non profit organization granted authority to provide fire and emergency medical services as part of their mission. The department’s jurisdiction encompasses the entire Cross Creek community. In addition, the department maintains a contract to provide service to a portion of Alachua County and, as a result, receives funding from the county, which accounts for 80% of the operating budget. The response area includes some suburban neighborhoods and large rural areas of Alachua County. CCVFD provides emergency services to a population of approximately 950 in an area of roughly 69 square miles. These services are provided from two stations located within the community of Cross Creek. The department currently has an ISO rating of 9 in its service areas and has access to no pressurized hydrants. The department maintains a fleet of vehicles including two fire engines, one water tender, and one wildland vehicle. Currently, the tender and one brush unit are out of service, reportedly because the organization lacks funding to purchase liability insurance for these vehicles. There are no vehicles available in reserve. The department provides a variety of services including fire suppression, victim rescue, emergency medical first response, operations level hazardous materials response, and limited public fire safety education. The department does not perform code enforcement functions. The department received 131 calls for service during 2003. There are 12 individuals involved in delivering these services to the jurisdiction. The department has a volunteer chief, and 11 line volunteer personnel. Of the roster of volunteers, all 12 are assigned to the operations division. All primary response staffing is covered by volunteers. Volunteers are on an on-call basis and participate in the delivery system as their schedules permit.
Structure and Governance The organization’s authority to provide service is gained through incorporation and from the contract with Alachua County. The fire chief is an appointed position and the Board of Directors makes that selection. Authority of the fire chief is clearly defined by organizational by-laws, and written policies are in place within the by-laws setting the
56
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
roles of the fire chief and other department members. The fire chief has no authority to accept volunteers. The membership votes to accept new members; however with Board approval, the chief can expel or terminate volunteers. Additionally, financial controls are in place and are defined and monitored by the Board of Directors. Unity of command is defined and everyone reports to the fire chief through their respective officer. The operating division uses a top-down hierarchy with one division defined, that being emergency delivery. Department programs are not defined nor monitored for performance. Formal job descriptions are not maintained or updated. Foundational administrative policies are not adopted. In terms of organizational policies, the Cross Creek volunteers are simply governed by their by-laws. The chief’s span of control is very manageable. No planning elements are in place, including the lack of a current mission statement. An organizational vision has not been established. Critical issues and future challenges are not formally identified, but at least two issues are perceived to be volunteer retention and lack of funding. An annual report is not produced. Training records are maintained within the organization. Exposure records are maintained by Alachua County. Fire reports are maintained and submitted to the State Fire Marshals Office.
Finance An analysis of available financial information for the organization indicates total budgeted expenditures for fire protection of $72,460, including approximately $14,500 in funds raised through private donations. Based on the total of parcel values served in the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost per $1000 of assessed value is approximately $2.03. Based on the population of the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost is approximately $76.27 per resident.
Capital Assets and Resources As stated earlier, the Cross Creek Volunteer Fire Department operates two fire stations. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the facilities.
57
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Cross Creek Volunteer Fire Department Station # 31 Built in 1984 and consisting of three apparatus bays, this facility does present a few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Basic design as a volunteer fire station. Not designed for any overnight staffing.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to medium maintenance costs. Kitchen and day room are not adequate for staffing.
•
Safety:
Many problems noted. No fire detection system installed, no sprinkler system. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
Not equipped with an automatic exhaust system for vehicles.
Code Compliance:
Building is not ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station was built as a volunteer fire station and does not meet standards as a manned fire station. No dorms, showers.
•
Efficiency:
This station lacks planned efficiency for staff and visitors.
Cross Creek Volunteer Fire Department Fire Station # 31 Sub Station Believed to have been built in the 1930’s and consisting of a detached garage for apparatus with an older home as its station and living quarters, this facility presents some concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Originally designed as a single-family home and has been converted to a volunteer fire station.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to high maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
Many problems noted. No fire detection system installed, no sprinkler system. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
Not equipped with an automatic exhaust system for vehicles.
Code Compliance:
Building is not ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station was built as a residence and does not meet standards as a public building. No dorms or adequate showers. Not suitable for fulltime staffing.
•
Efficiency:
This station lacks planned efficiency for staff and visitors.
58
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The department operates several pieces of firefighting apparatus. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the primary response apparatus. Definitions of the condition assessment ratings can be found in the appendix section of the report.
Year
Condition
Pump GPM
Tank Size
Seats
E-31
1994
Good
1250
500
2
Yes
Equipped with basic tools, no problems noted
T-31
1973
OOS
300
2500
2
No
Vehicle Out Of Service
B-311
1996
Good
250
300
2
N/A
Standard brush unit
1975
Good Per CCVFD
1000
1000
2
Vehicle
Unit
P-31
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
Meets Remarks NFPA
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
The following chart list the primary heavy apparatus used by the department, excluding smaller commercial-style utility or staff vehicles. It includes current age, life expectancy, and roughly estimated replacement-funding requirements. Table 9: Cross Creek VFD Apparatus Replacement Funding Table
Unit
Year
Life
Engine 31 Tanker 31 Pumper 31 Brush 311
1994 1973 1975 1996
15 15 15 10
Replacement Cost
Annual Fund Contribution
Current Cash Requirement
$175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $65,000 TOTALS
$11,666 $11,666 $11,666 $6,500 $41,498
$116,660 $175,000 $175,000 $52,000 $518,660
59
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
It should be noted that this replacement funding chart represents funding levels needed for a capital replacement fund that is both adequate and up-to-date, assuring cash is available for purchase at the expected time of replacement. This is not meant to exclude other funding methods from consideration.
Staffing All staffing is provided by volunteer fire fighters. The volunteer fire chief spends additional time in the office meeting the needs of the organization. Job descriptions have not been written. The fire chief is an appointed position controlled by the Board of Directors. Administrative and Support Staffing All support work is provided by the current operational staff as an administrative staff position is not provided. Operational Staffing Current staffing consists of volunteers. Volunteers are used within the organization to provide the delivery system. Typically, the available volunteers respond with the first due piece of equipment as soon as they get to the fire station. A maximum turnout time of 2 minutes has been established by the county before dispatchers repeat the dispatch and add an adjacent station to the assignment. Turnout time of 5:00 or greater is considered a non-response under the terms of the County contract. No other formal response time performance goal has been adopted by the department.
Service Delivery Incident Preparation and Management Pre-fire plans have not been developed for the district occupancies. ICS is not used on any local incidents; however when needed, the regional system is put in place. A formal accountability system is not in place. Hazardous materials response beyond the operations level is provide by Gainesville Fire Department’s regional hazardous materials team. Standards of Coverage All of the Cross Creek response area is unincorporated and, thus, the agency utilizes the standards of coverage adopted by Alachua County Fire Rescue for the unincorporated regions of the County as its standard response protocol throughout. This standard of
60
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
coverage specifies the quantity and type of apparatus responded to various types of incidents based on critical tasks to be performed. Emergency Medical Services The department provides First Responder medical response at the BLS level. The county medical director provides oversight for all EMS response. The department follows the county’s established medical protocols. Deployment Strategy / Response Time Capabilities Cross Creek Volunteer Fire Department maintains two fire stations within its response area. The following map displays the total primary response area of the agency as well as the station locations. In addition, street segments shaded in red demonstrate those areas within a six-minute travel time of the station, while those shaded in green demonstrate those areas within an eight-minute travel time. Non-shaded street segments are beyond an eight-minute travel time. Figure 4: Cross Creek VFD Current Station Deployment
\ &
Cross Creek VFD #31
\ &
Cross Creek VFD #31-A
^ -------------
Fire station Streets within six travel minutes of a fire station Streets within eight travel minutes of a fire station
61
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Training and Competencies Under its contract with Alachua County, the department is required to maintain certain minimum training standards, including the successful completion of the Florida Volunteer Firefighter certification course in the case of volunteers and possession of a Certificate of Compliance under Florida statutes in the case of paid firefighters. The County contract also requires attendance by all firefighters to three specific fire trainings annually and six specific medical trainings every two years. According to interviews with department staff, however, minimum training levels have not been established within the agency for each position. Recruit training is provided in basic safety, basic firefighting, Fire Fighter I, and hazardous materials awareness; however, there are no minimum standards for participation in emergencies. Training records are maintained on the department computer. The organization is currently working to convert all fire fighters to FF 1 from the 30-hour basic volunteer certification. Fire officer training is not consistently offered. Training is offered once per week and each member must attend at least one session per month. The department does not provide a physical ability test for existing volunteers and minimum skill testing is not conducted.
62
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
City of Gainesville Fire Rescue Department General Description The Gainesville Fire Rescue Department (GFR) is a department of the City of Gainesville, Florida that is a governmental entity formed under the laws of the State of Florida and granted authority to levy taxes for the purposes of providing fire and emergency services. The Department’s jurisdiction encompasses the entire city limits. In addition, the department participates in a “Designated Assistance Agreement” with Alachua County generally providing for the closest services to respond to those areas bordering the City of Gainesville and the County. The response area includes urban city development and suburban neighborhoods. The department began providing fire protection services in 1882 and has a rich history of service as one of the state’s premier fire departments. GFR provides emergency services to a population of approximately 117,472 in an area of roughly 86 square miles. These services are provided from seven facilities located within the jurisdiction. The department operates a fleet of vehicles including five engine companies, one quint, two tower trucks, one squad truck, one aircraft crash unit, one aircraft chemical unit, and numerous specialty/utility vehicles. The department also maintains several reserve vehicles. There are 149.5 individuals involved in delivering these services to the jurisdiction. The department has a Chief, one Deputy Chief, one Assistant Chief, eight District Chiefs, 29 Lieutenants, 33 Fire Driver-Operators, 65 Firefighters, and 11.5 Support/Administrative Personnel. Of the roster of employees, four are assigned to the Training Bureau, and seven are assigned to Fire Safety Management.
Primary staffing coverage for all
emergency response is provided by on-duty career firefighters working 24-hour shifts. The department provides a variety of services including fire suppression, extrication, aircraft rescue, first-responder ALS emergency medical response, technician-level hazardous materials response (fulfilling the technical response component of an elevencounty area as part of a regional response team), technical rescue, SWAT medic, hazmat medic, code enforcement, and public fire safety education.
63
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Structure and Governance The City of Gainesville, the County Seat of Alachua County, is a municipal corporation formed and established within the laws of the State of Florida.
Under these laws,
Gainesville is an authorized taxing jurisdiction with the legal right to levy taxes for the purposes of providing fire and emergency services protection. The City of Gainesville fire protection system is established within the municipal charter and further defined in City ordinance. The City of Gainesville has operated under a Commission-Manager form of government since 1927.
The City Commission is responsible for enacting the ordinances and
resolutions that govern the City.
The City Commission is comprised of six
commissioners and a mayor. Four Commissioners are elected from single district member districts. Two Commissioners and the Mayor are elected citywide. The City Manager, who is appointed by the City Commission, is responsible for the operations and management of all departments of City government except those controlled by other charter officers. The City Manager implements the policy directives of the City Commission. As authorized by municipal charter, the Fire Chief is appointed and supervised by the City Manager. The responsibilities of the Fire Chief are clearly defined by the municipal charter and his authority is delineated by City ordinance. The agency’s organizational chart indicates that the Department is organized in a typical top-down hierarchy. The chart reveals a relatively clear chain of command where each individual members reports to only one supervisor and is aware to whom they are responsible to for supervision and accountability.
This method of organization
encourages structured and consistent lines of communication and prevents positions, tasks, and assignments from being overlooked. The overall goals and objectives of the organization are effectively communicated throughout the organization in a consistent fashion. The organizational structure is charted with clear, designated operating divisions that permit the core functions of the organization to be the primary focus of the specific supervisors and assigned members. While some tasks-level activities may carry over
64
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
from unit to unit, the primary focus of leadership, management, and budgeting within the unit are clarified by the unit’s key function within the mission statement. Individuals supervising or operating within a specific unit are clear as to the role of the unit and its goals and objectives. GFR has sufficiently analyzed its mission and functions such that a resulting set of specific agency programs have been established.
Organized, structured programs
permit better assignment of resources, division of workload, development of future planning, and analysis of service delivery. programs
with
titles,
assigned
leadership,
Departments that have clarified their resources,
budget
appropriations,
performance objectives and accountability are among the most successful. The Fire Chief appears to directly supervise five other individuals, including the Deputy Chief, the Assistant Chief, the Special Operations District Chief, the Senior Executive Assistant, and the Computer Systems Analyst. The Chief’s span of control falls within the range typically considered normal and acceptable. This is a positive reflection on the agency’s organizational structure, since many times chief officers accept or encourage a span of control that greatly exceeds their ability to maintain good communications and leadership. The GFR organizational structure is reflected in the following organization chart provided by the Department:
65
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Gainesville Fire Rescue Organization Chart FY 03-04 SPECIAL OPERATIONS District Chief
FIRE CHIEF
Sr. Executive Assistant
Computer Systems Analyst
Sr. Account Clerk EMERGENCY OPERATIONS Deputy Fire Chief
Staff Assistant II
FIRE SAFETY MANAGEMENT Assistant Fire Chief Staff Assistant II
DISTRICT 1 District Chief [3]
Staff Assistant I
Station One Engine 1 Tower 1 Rescue 1
Station Five Quint 5
DISTRICT 2 District Chief [3]
Communications Equip. Tech. [0.5]
TRAINING BUREAU District Chief [1]
Fire Inspectors [3]
Fire Investigative Services Officer
Staff Assistant I
Public Education Specialist
Station Three Engine 3
Station Two Engine 2 Tower 2
Lieutenant [2]
Station Six Crash 61 Chemical 62
Station Four Engine 4
Station Seven Engine 7
Job descriptions for all current positions within the Department are reasonably up-todate and accurately reflect the typical individual duties, responsibilities and activities. The Department currently maintains three collective bargaining agreements with certain classes of employees within the organization that clarify the salary, benefits, and many working conditions under which the employees in the classification will operate. The CWA is comprised of five administrative/clerical employees, with eight District Chiefs in the IAFF supervisory unit, and all employees in the rank of Lieutenant and below in a general IAFF unit.
66
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The Insurance Services Office, Inc., (ISO) of Marlton, NJ, reviews the fire protection capabilities of Florida fire departments.
Communities receive a Public Protection
Classification ranging from one to ten with one being ideal protection and 10 being no protection.
The Public Protection Classification primarily affects the cost of fire
insurance for most properties. The lower the classification the lower the cost of fire insurance. The Insurance Services Office graded the City of Gainesville, as part of the Alachua County Rating Schedule, approximately ten years ago with an informational update in November 2003. Gainesville enjoys the grading of three for those areas within the city limits. The process of strategic planning involves clarifying an organization’s mission, articulating its vision for the future, and specifying the values within which it will conduct itself. GFR has not completed a formal strategic planning process that involves various members of the organization charting clear direction for its future. Its mission statement, goals, annual objectives, and performance measures are delineated, however, through its Financial and Operating Plan. The mission statement, goals and objectives for FYs 2002-2004 are as follows: Mission Statement The Gainesville Fire Rescue Department’s mission is to protect and serve through community involvement, education, prevention, and rapid intervention by professionals committed to excellence. Goals Effective management of fire investigations, fire inspections, public education, fire prevention, and disaster preparedness with focus on the development and preparation of planning processes within the department, in conjunction with other city departments, and diversifying revenues to support essential programs and services.
67
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan Objectives
•
• • • • •
• •
• • • • • • • • • •
•
Rapid management of fire, medical, disaster, and all community emergencies with the primary focus on safety, forming partnerships, improving relations with other governmental agencies, refining the planning process, and diversifying revenues to support essential programs and services Protection of live and property by increasing fire education and prevention of injuries for 145,000 citizens within a 135 square mile service area to promote human health, well being, and promote life safety and fire prevention awareness. Continue to direct a juvenile justice alternative program in cooperation with the Department of Juvenile Justice. Continue to coordinate and monitor public safety events, increase school participation and agency awareness of Safety City programs. Conduct quarterly visits of neighborhood public schools, charters, private schools and pre-schools Review and update the emergency plan, conduct annual disaster drills, and participate in developing a disaster mitigation program with all city departments ad area agencies. Recommend and develop (or implement) an inspection fees program to diversify revenues, implement a plan to measure the reduction of serious code violations and continue to perform annual fire safety inspections to ensure basic compliance with fire codes. Develop and implement a quality assurance program for all fire safety records. Re-institute the arson canine investigation program. Accommodate a diverse work force by creating a safe and healthy work environment. Continue to review barriers for hiring women and minorities in trainee positions giving them the opportunity for professional development before permanent employment. Increase advertisement in targeted publications. Reduce employee selection process time from initial testing to establishing list. Increase opportunities for upward mobility. Continue plan for interagency incident command course for all public safety agencies. Strengthen firefighter safety by continuing to develop, train and implement programs. Continue specialized training for the Rapid Intervention Team (RIT). Implement the affirmative action work plan to include additional objectives increasing minority employment Renegotiate the Airport Services Agreement Continue discussions of fire merger to conclusion Continue to evolve the technical rescue program to perform elevated, confined space, and trench rescue operations Conduct and participate in multi-operational drills Implementation of the Regional Hazardous Materials Team response Continue to obtain hazardous materials technician and aircraft rescue firefighting certifications over the current levels in the operations work force. Continue to provide Tactical Medial Support Team for all local law enforcement agencies. Train all first responders in terrorism response. Develop Interagency Operations Guidelines (IOGs) for responses involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).\
In addition to the organization objectives, GFR uses the National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 as their informal performance objectives for turnout and total response time goals. The Department strives for a 60 second turnout time (the time it takes for units to leave the station once dispatched) and a five-minute response time
68
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
(the time it takes to arrive on the scene of the emergency once dispatched).
The
response time goal is comprised of a maximum of one minute in the station and four minutes travel time. GFR maintains administrative policies, standard operating guidelines, and personnel policies. Personnel policies appear in both municipal and departmental manuals and standard operating guidelines do not currently exist in adequate detail. These documents are currently under review to accomplish consolidation, improved quality, and updated style in a HTML format for easier access and distribution. It is extremely important that there be a clear understanding of critical issues facing the Department. Without this understanding, Department leadership cannot be prepared to face these issues.
The enunciation of critical issues to employees and members
increases their awareness of the organization’s priorities and assists them in becoming focused on solutions. Exploration of critical issues should be pursued through a formal strategic planning process. However representatives of the City of Gainesville and members of the GFR identified the following critical issues: 1. Lack of capital facility improvement – The last fire station was built in 1981. The Department maintains a number of older facilities due to the lack of capital improvement funding. 2. Lack of staff expansion – Roles and missions of the Department increase with the same number of personnel.
The number of personnel remains static despite City
growth. 3. Lack of adequate training facility – The Florida Fire College facility is more than 30 miles away necessitating “back-fill” of personnel and apparatus to attend. Reduced number of fires requires increased training.
69
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Officers of the Department were asked to articulate the most significant challenges they felt the future may hold for GFR: 1. Inability to increase tax base – A significant portion of the Department’s jurisdiction is tax exempt. 2. A finite resource capacity – Current geographical boundaries restrict the expansion of the tax base. 3. Meeting demands of expanded roles and missions - Roles and missions continually increase without increased resources. Quality communications is an achievable goal for any organization, but one that can be elusive.
To its credit, GFR, formally and informally, does an admirable job of both
internal and external communications. The City of Gainesville and the Department regularly publish a comprehensive annual report and maintain an up-to-date website. Records management is a critical function to any organization. A variety of uses are made of written records and, therefore, their integrity must be protected. Florida State law requires access to, and maintenance, of fire department documents and data. Clear procedures are in place to provide for public records access.
Paper records are
adequately secured with passage or container locks with limited access.
Important
computer files are backed-up to a secure location on a regular and consistent basis. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations are complied with. The Department utilizes up-to-date records management software to enter and store incident information required by the State Fire Marshal. Training records are maintained on computer permitting easy retrieval of accurate records on training attendance, certification status, and subject matter.
Code enforcement activities and occupancy
records are maintained in an effective database to permit analysis of prevention activities, community risks, and trends. Personnel records are complete and up-to-date, and maintained in a manner that protects private medical information of employees.
Records are maintained on
employment history, discipline, commendations, work assignments, injuries, exposures and leave time.
70
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Financial activities, including budgets, expenditures, revenues, purchase orders, and other encumbrances are kept in a financial records management system permitting consistent and up-to-date monitoring of all financial transactions and accounts.
Finance An analysis of available financial information for the organization indicates total budgeted expenditures for fire protection9 of $12,820,278. Revenues used for fire protection are primarily from the City’s General Fund, but also include nearly $400,000 in contractual funds received for fire protection at the airport. Additional revenue is anticipated by the City from the Designated Assistance Agreement with Alachua County, which varies from year to year based on the number of calls into unincorporated area. Based on the total of parcel values served in the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection expenditure per $1000 of assessed value is approximately $2.14. Based on the population of the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection expenditure is approximately $109.13 per resident.
Capital Assets and Resources As stated earlier, the Gainesville Fire Department operates seven fire stations. Most stations are modern and are equipped for suitable operations. Many stations have the ability to conduct many different types of training exercises for firefighters. The administrative offices are designed well and it appears that there is ample room for operations. High ranking officers should have privacy for sensitive issues and there seems to be amble separate offices. There is an additional building for the training center that can hold the entire daily shift. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the facilities. It should be noted that a U.S. Fire Administration “FIRE Act” grant is currently being used to add diesel exhaust removal and fire alarm systems to all stations. This project should be complete by March of 2005.
9
Figures provided are from the City of Gainesville 2003-2004 Financial and Operating Plan
(Agency 820- Fire Rescue) provided to ESCi. Expenditure figures do not include costs for hydrant rental or budgeted expenditures for the Designated Assistance Agreement with ACFR.
71
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Gainesville Fire Station #1 Built in 1961, this 8,000 square foot facility consists of two double apparatus bays, this facility presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety or efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station meets the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. No fire detection system installed, No sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker room, and sleeping quarters. Kitchen and day room have ample room for the staff. Well equipped workout area. Station is well maintained and clean. Floor plan fits the needs of today’s firefighters.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
Gainesville Fire Station #2 Built in 1976, this 8,781 square foot facility consists of three double apparatus bays, this facility presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety or efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station meets the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. No fire detection system installed, No sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker rooms. Kitchen and day room have ample room for the staff. An exercise room is well equipped and located in its own room. Station is well maintained and clean. Floor plan fits the needs of today’s firefighters
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
72
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Gainesville Fire Station #3 Built in 1960, this 5,759 square foot facility consists of two apparatus bays, presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station meets the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Design:
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. No fire detection system installed, No sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is not ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the kitchen, locker room, and sleeping quarters. Day room ha ample room for the staff. Well equipped workout area. Station is well maintained and clean. Floor plan fits the needs of today’s firefighters.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
Gainesville Fire Station #4 Built in 1964, this 3,680 square foot facility consists of two double apparatus bays, presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station meets the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. No fire detection system installed, No sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted. Propane tank in yard should be removed.
Code Compliance:
Building is not ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station may need some renovation for the locker room, and sleeping quarters. Kitchen and day room have ample room for the staff. Well equipped workout area. Station is well maintained and clean. Floor plan fits the needs of today’s firefighters.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
73
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Gainesville Fire Station #5 Built in 1964, this 3,800 square foot facility consists of one double apparatus bay, presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station meets the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. No fire detection system installed, No sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is not ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station has male and female bathroom and shower facilities. Station is well maintained and clean. Well equipped workout area.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
Gainesville Fire Station #6 Built in 1979, this 2,720 square foot facility consists of two double apparatus bays, presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. This Fire Station is designated for the Gainesville Airport only and does not respond in the City. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station meets the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. No fire detection system installed, No sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station has male and female bathroom and shower facilities. Well equipped workout area.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
74
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Gainesville Fire Station #7 Built in 1980, this 2,036 square foot facility consists of a single apparatus bay, presents few concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station meets the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. No fire detection system installed, No sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station has male and female bathroom and shower facilities. Station needs maintenance (tape holding carpet in place, etc). Turnout gear stored in an outside storage building.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted.
The department operates numerous pieces of firefighting apparatus. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the primary response apparatus. Definitions of the condition assessment ratings can be found in the appendix section of the report.
Unit
Year
Condition
Pump
Tank
GPM
Size
Seats
Meets NFPA
Remarks
Well Equipped, E-1
2001
Excellent
1750
750
4
Yes
no problems noted
Well Equipped, T-1
2000
Excellent
1750
300
4
Yes
no problems noted
75
Alachua County, Florida
Unit
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Year
Condition
Pump
Tank
GPM
Size
Seats
Meets NFPA
Remarks
Well Equipped, S-1
1997
Excellent
N/A
N/A
2
No
no problems noted
Well Equipped, E-2
2001
Excellent
1750
750
4
Yes
no problems noted
Well Equipped, T-2
2000
Excellent
1750
300
4
Yes
no problems noted
Well Equipped, H-2
2000
Good
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
no problems noted
Well Equipped, E-3
2001
Excellent
1750
750
4
Yes
no problems noted
Well Equipped, E-4
2001
Excellent
1750
750
4
Yes
no problems noted
Well Equipped, Q-5
2001
Excellent
1750
500
4
Yes
no problems noted
E-7
2001
Good (per GFD)
Vehicle Not 1750
750
4
Yes
Available For Inspection
76
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The following chart lists the primary heavy apparatus used by the department, excluding smaller commercial-style utility or staff vehicles. It includes current age, life expectancy, and roughly estimated replacement-funding requirements. The airport crash vehicles are not included, since funding for their replacement comes from outside the city budget. Table 10: GFR Apparatus Replacement Funding Table
Unit
Year
Life
Replacement Cost
Annual Fund Contribution
Current Cash Requirement
Engine-1
2001
20
$275,000
$13,750
$41,250
Tower –1
2000
20
$750,000
$37,500
$150,000
Squad – 1
1997
10
$85,000
$8,500
$59,500
Engine –2
2001
20
$275,000
$13,750
$41,250
Tower – 2
2000
20
$750,000
$37,500
$150,000
Haz-Mat –2
2000
15
$135,000
$15,625
$62,500
Engine –3
2001
20
$275,000
$13,750
$41,250
Engine –4
2001
20
$125,000
$13,750
$41,250
Quint –5
2001
20
$570,000
$28,500
$85,500
Engine – 7
2001
$275,000
$13,750
$41,250
TOTALS
$193,375
$713,250
20
It should be noted that this replacement funding chart represents funding levels needed for a capital replacement fund that is both adequate and up-to-date, assuring cash is available for purchase at the expected time of replacement. This is not meant to exclude other funding methods from consideration. As stated earlier in the report, the table is provided as a comparative benchmark with which to evaluate an agency’s capital replacement funding efforts and, as such, uses standardized replacement schedules and costs developed by ESCi. We wish to point out that the City of Gainesville has an active and consistent fleet replacement funding effort based on a more specific capital replacement program developed by the City. The City’s replacement cycle for apparatus is shorter than the standardized examples used by ESCi, but the system used by the City is equivalent in scope and represents a commendable commitment to apparatus and equipment upkeep. As a result, the City has contributed $329,104 annually to replacement funding each year for the last two years.
77
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Staffing With the exception of seven volunteer personnel participating as Public Information Interns/Officers, GFR uses career staffing to provide service to the community. Administrative functions are generally the responsibility of the staff officers, with support provided by clerical employees. Staffing for emergency response to fire, EMS, and other emergency incidents is entirely career, uniformed personnel working 24 hours on, 48 hours off rotational shifts (Shifts “A,” “B,” and “C”). Administrative and Support Staffing An efficient and effective administrative and support staff is critical the success of a fire department. With insufficient oversight, planning, documentation, training, regulation, and maintenance, the operational entities of the Department will fail any emergency test. Like any other parts of the organization, administration and support require appropriate resources to function properly. Statistically, GFR enjoys 16.9% of administrative/support personnel to operational staff. Table 11: GFR Admin / Support Staffing Table Position Title Fire Chief Assistant Chief Deputy Chief Computer Analyst Executive Assistant Sr Account Clerk Sr Staff Assistant Sr Staff Assistant 2 Total Authorized Investigative Svcs Officer Fire Inspector Public Education Spec Training Chief Special Operations chief Training Lieutenants Training Captain Radio Technician Total Authorized
Number of Hours Worked Positions Per Week Administrative Personnel 1 40 1 40 1 40 1 40 1 40 1 40 3 40 1 40 10 Support Personnel 1 40 3 40 1 (2) 40 1 40 1 40 2 (0) 40 0 (2) 40 1 20 11
Work Schedule M-F 8-5 M-F 8-5 M-F 8-5 M-F 8-5 M-F 8-5 M-F 8-5 M-F 8-5 M-F 8-5 4/10 4/10 5/8 5/8 5/8 4/10 4/10 M-F 2-12
78
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Operational Staffing It takes an adequate and well-trained staff of emergency service responders to put the apparatus and equipment to its best use in mitigating an emergency incident. Insufficient staffing at the emergency scene decreases the effectiveness of the response and increases the risk of injury to those at the scene. Table 12: GFR Operations Staffing Tables
Position Title Firefighter Driver Operator Lieutenant District Chief Total Authorized
Current Operational Personnel Complement Number of Positions Hours Worked Per Week 60 (64) 48-72 31 (33) 48-72 26 (27) 48-72 6 48-72 130
Work Schedule 24 on 48 off 24 on 48 off 24 on 48 off 24 on 48 off
Operational personnel are assigned to one of three 24-hour rotating shifts working from 0800 hours to 0800 hours. District Chiefs work from 0700 hours to 0700 hours. 35 – 40 personnel are assigned to each of the shifts with 33 assigned to staff apparatus. Current Distribution by Station with Existing Operations Staff Station Firefighters Driver Operators Lieutenants 22 13 6 1 14 5 6 2 7 3 3 3 7 2 3 4 8 4 3 5 0 3 3 6 (Airport) 6 3 3 7 Totals 64 33 27
GFR provides unit staffing as follows: Table 13: GFR Minimum Staffing By Apparatus Type Current Distribution of Personnel By Unit Unit Type Minimum Staffing Engine 3 Tower Ladder 4 Quint 4 Squad 2
79
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
An initial analysis of the number emergency services staff begins by making a comparison of available emergency services personnel to other communities of similar size and nature. Using the National Fire Protection Association benchmark data from the 2002 U.S. Fire Department Profile, we compare staffing levels of GFR at 1.11 firefighters per 1,000 population protected to the regional median of 1.49 firefighters per 1,000 population protected for the Southern region of U.S., communities of 100,000 to 250,000. This indicates that GFR has a lower ratio of firefighters to population when compared to mean levels for the region.
Service Delivery Incident Preparation and Management It is critically important that firefighters and command staff have good and accurate information readily at hand to identify hazards, direct operational operations, and use built-in fire resistive features. This can only be accomplished by building familiarization tours, developing pre-incident plans, and conducting tactical exercises either on-site or by tabletop simulations. Completing pre-incident plans should continue to be a GFR priority. Currently, Emergency Operations personnel are assigned approximately 48 pre-incident plans annually for update and/or completion. These plans are stored on a server in an HTML format and are available on emergency scenes through mobile data terminals. Some paper copies are also available in Command units. The plans are available for training purposes. GFR utilizes a standardized incident command system locally, regionally and statewide. This system is based on a comprehensive program promulgated through the Florida Fire Chiefs’ Association. A county-wide mutual aid system is in place, with automatic aid, and a formal statewide mutual aid plan has been promulgated by the Florida Fire Chiefs’ Association, including a deployment scheme. GFR utilizes their incident command system and personnel accountability system on all incidents.
80
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The department participates in a “Designated Assistance Agreement” with Alachua County, generally providing for the closest services to respond to those areas bordering the City of Gainesville and the County. The response area includes urban city development and suburban neighborhoods. Automatic mutual aid within the County is facilitated within Department policies through the Combined Communications Center. Standards of Coverage Time matters a great deal in the achievement of an effective outcome to an emergency event. But time isn’t the only factor. Equally critical is delivering enough personnel to the scene to perform all concurrent tasks required to deliver quality emergency care. The following chart identifies the initial response by GFR to basic emergency types in the City of Gainesville: Table 14: GFR Current Standard Of Cover Current GFR Initial Response To Basic Incident Types Type of Call Units Dispatched Number of Personnel Building Fire 2E+1TW+1SQ+1R+DC 15 Aircraft Crash on Airport 2E+1TW+1SQ+1R+Chem62+DC 17 Brush Fire 1E 3 EMS 1ALS-BLS+1R 5-6 Trash/Vehicle Fire 1E 3 E=Engine, TW=Ladder or Quint, SQ=Squad, R=Rescue, DC=District Chief
GFR, through its response/dispatch protocol matrix, has provided the appropriate initial response resources.
Initial N.F.P.A. response recommendations for moderate fire
hazards and initial EMS incidents are generally met, with an appropriate mechanism to rapidly expand resources as needed. Emergency Medical Services Emergency medical services are delivered to the City of Gainesville through a two-tiered response system. GFR provides the first response advanced life support resource and Alachua County Fire Rescue responds for patient transport. The Department provides initial ALS-level EMS response via a squad vehicle. However, all GFR units with the exception of Station 6 are staffed and equipped to provide first-response ALS services. Medical direction and formal quality assurance is provided through Dr. Joseph Layon, who acts as an Assistant to the ACFR Medical Director. Formal medical protocols are provided and followed by certified GFR personnel.
81
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Deployment Strategy / Response Time Capabilities Gainesville Fire Department maintains seven fire stations within its response area. The following map displays the total primary response area of the agency, as well as the station locations. In addition, street segments shaded in red demonstrate those areas within a four-minute travel time of the station, while those shaded in green demonstrate those areas within an six-minute travel time. Non-shaded street segments are beyond an six-minute travel time. It should be noted that the locations of all speed control devices (speed humps) were geographically plotted and included in this projection in order to most accurately portray anticipated response time capabilities. Station #6 is not included in this response time model as it does not currently provide response off airport property. Figure 5: Gainesville FD Current Station Deployment
STATION 7
STATION 5
\ & \ & STATION 6
\ &
\ & \ &
\ &
STATION 4
STATION 3
\ & STATION 2
^ -------------
STATION 1
Fire station Streets within four travel minutes of a fire station Streets within six travel minutes of a fire station
82
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Training and Competencies The GFR Training Bureau has a full time staff comprised of:
• • •
One District Chief (Training Officer) Two Lieutenants One Staff Assistant
Basic fire training is based around the IFSTA standards and curriculum adopted by the State of Florida. Emergency medical training is based around medical control protocols and teaching standards recognized by the State of Florida. The instructional standards for both fire and EMS programs are widely recognized and designed to meet or exceed nationally recognized benchmarks and practices. The Training Bureau, with its limited staff and budge,t does an admirable job in accomplishing the Department’s training goals and objectives. The following training hours were provided by the GFR Training Bureau for the previous calendar year: 1. Single company drill hours for operations personnel EMS Wiseware Video Training Communication Center Training Total
24 24 03 51
2. Multi-Company drill hours for operations personnel “Values” Fire Chief presentation HAZ-MAT EVOC Didactic Medical Protocols/Skills ACLS Re-Cert RIT Didactic Radio/MDC PASS Devices RIT II Incident Reporting Total
03 08 06 02 04 08 04 02 08 03 51
3. Preplan/Construction Site Review Stadium Oak Hammock Construction Total
04 02 06
83
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
4. Paramedic In-Service PM In-Service Training
02
5. New Employee Orientation 18 New Employees 10X160 08X176 Total
1600 1408 3008
6. FSFC Standards Class 8 Employees 08 X 480
3840
The average training hours per member in 2003 was 114.
This average does not
include new employee orientation or the FSFC Standards Classes. Twelve GFR employees attended the National Fire Academy during calendar 2003 for a total of 960 hours of training.
FIRE SAFETY MANAGEMENT The Fire Safety Management Office is staffed with one Assistant Fire Chief, One Staff Assistant II, three Fire Inspectors, one Fire Investigative Services Officer, and two Public Education Specialists (one of whom also serves as Public Information Officer). The Department’s target frequency of inspections for high-risk properties is annually. Low-risk properties are targeted for five years. During CY 2003, 1,800 inspections were conducted. GFR provides an extensive life and fire safety outreach program to number of different audiences across the City of Gainesville. The following information identifies a summary of these programs:
• • • • • •
School Visits Station Visits Public Education Through Characterization Safety City Programming Junior Fire Academy Public Service Announcements
• • • • • •
Adult Safety Education Special Event Participation Juvenile Fire Setter Intervention Fire Extinguisher Training Project Get Alarmed – Smoke Detector Installation Project Hug Alarm
84
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Hazardous Materials Mitigation Until June 2000, the City of Gainesville had the only local government hazardous materials response team in North Central Florida. The cities of Gainesville, Starke, and Lake City, and the counties of Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Union, and Gilchrist have entered into inter-local agreement creating the first multi-county, multi-city hazardous materials response team in the State of Florida. The regional team is structured with four initial response trailers assigned to the cities of Starke, Lake City, Gilchrist and Alachua Counties, which contain specialized supplies capable of managing known hazardous materials incidents requiring less than two entries into atmospheres immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH). A specialty medical decontamination trailer is assigned to Bradford County for team support and the Technical Response component provided by the City of Gainesville to response to unknown hazardous material releases and/or situation requiring specialized equipment or necessitating multiple entries into IDLH atmospheres. The total response area for this regional team encompasses eleven counties in North Central Florida.
Tactical Medical Support Team GFR’s Tactical Medical Response Team provides 24 hour a day tactical medical support to the Alachua County Sheriff’s Department and the City of Gainesville Police Department Specialized Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. Paramedic personnel from GFR routinely train with both agencies and are considered integrated SWAT response team members who are contacted and deployed via pager.
Technical Rescue Team GFR provides technical rescue response and maintains specialized equipment for elevated (above grade) emergencies, trench collapse, and confined space emergencies. GFR is one of four agencies involved in a coalition to form an Urban Search and Rescue Type III Team for this region’s response.
85
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
City of High Springs Fire Department General Description The High Springs Fire Department is a department of the City of High Springs, which is a governmental entity, formed under the laws of the State of Florida and granted authority to levy taxes for the purposes of providing fire and emergency medical services as part of the city government. The department’s jurisdiction encompasses the entire city limits. In addition, the department maintains a contract to provide service to a portion of Alachua County and, as a result, receives additional funds from the county. The response area includes city development, suburban neighborhoods, and some remaining rural areas of Alachua County. HSFD provides emergency services to a population of 7054 in an area of roughly 68 square miles. These services are provided from one station located within the city limits. The department currently has an ISO rating of 6 in the city limits and 9 in rural areas. The department has access to pressurized hydrants in 95% of the city limits and about 7% of the contract area. The department maintains a fleet of vehicles including one fire engine, one pumper/tanker, two squads, one wildland vehicle. The department provides a variety of services including fire suppression, victim rescue, Basic Life Support emergency medical response, first responder-level hazardous materials response, limited code enforcement, and public fire safety education. The department received 1169 calls for service in the pervious year of which 73% were of a medical nature, while only 27% were fire related. Additionally, of the total number of calls less than 50% (581) were within the city limits. There are 25 individuals involved in delivering these services to the jurisdiction. The department has a fire chief, 1 full time firefighter, and 8 part time firefighters and 15 volunteers. Of the roster of employees, 24 are assigned to the operations division, and the other one is administrative. The primary staffing coverage for all emergency response is provided by on-duty career and part time firefighters working 24 hour shifts.
Structure and Governance The organization’s authority to provide service is gained through the city charter and from the State of Florida. Authority of the fire chief is clearly defined by city ordinance, and written policies are in place setting the roles of the fire chief and members. The fire chief recommends appointment and termination to the city manager for action.
86
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Financial controls are in place and are defined and monitored by the city finance officer. Unity of command is defined and everyone reports to the fire chief. The operating division uses a top-down hierarchy with one division defined, emergency delivery. Department programs are not clearly defined or monitored for compliance. Formal job descriptions are currently being developed for all positions. The fire chief’s span of control is very manageable. Foundational administrative policies are adopted and reviewed for consistency; and each member is provided a copy. Copies are maintained in the work place and training is provided to all employees. No organizational planning elements are in place, including a current mission statement. An organizational vision has not been established. Critical issues and challenges have not been identified.
Performance objectives have been established, including a one-
minute turnout time and a response time performance goal of 3 to 4 minutes for calls within the city. An annual report is produced and provided to the city officials and made available to the public. Training records are maintained within the organization. Exposure records are maintained by Alachua County. Fire reports are maintained and submitted to the State Fire Marshals Office. Paid-on-call volunteers receive an IRS MISC 1099 form.
Finance An analysis of available financial information for the organization indicates total budgeted expenditures for fire protection of $215,253, of which approximately 58% is received from the County contract. Based on the total of parcel values served in the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost per $1000 of assessed value is approximately $0.80. Based on the population of the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost is approximately $30.52 per resident.
Capital Assets and Resources As stated earlier, the High Springs Fire Department operates one fire station. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the station.
87
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
High Springs Fire Department Fire Station # 29 This facility consists of three apparatus bays in the front, and two bays on the side of the station. This station is not adequate for 24-hour staffing and faces many maintenance problems. Unsure of the date of construction. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
This station does not meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to high maintenance costs. Kitchen and day room are not adequate for staffing.
•
Safety:
Many problems noted. No fire detection system installed, no sprinkler system. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
Not equipped with an automatic exhaust system for vehicles.
Code Compliance:
Building is not ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities
This station was built as a volunteer fire station and does not meet design provision for a manned fire station. Insufficient space for all necessary functions. Limited gender considerations (i.e. one bathroom).
•
Efficiency:
This station lacks planned efficiency for staff and visitors.
. The department operates several pieces of firefighting apparatus. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the primary response apparatus. Definitions of the condition assessment ratings can be found in the appendix section of the report.
88
Alachua County, Florida Unit
Vehicle
E-29
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan Year
Condition
Pump GPM
Tank Size
Seats
Meets NFPA
1985
Fair
1000
1000
2
No
Equipped with basic tools, no problems noted
Remarks
1991
Fair
1000
1250
2
No
Equipped with basic tools, no problems noted
B297
1974
Fair
250
160
2
No
Standard brush unit
S296
2003
Excellent
250
250
2
No
Unit well equipped and clean
S294
1997
Good
250
250
2
No
Unit well equipped and clean
T-29
The following chart list the primary heavy apparatus used by the department, excluding smaller commercial-style utility or staff vehicles. It includes current age, life expectancy, and roughly estimated replacement-funding requirements. Table 15: High Springs Apparatus Replacement Funding Table
Unit
Year
Life
Replacement Cost
Annual Fund Contribution
Current Cash Requirement
Engine 29
1985
15
$175,000
$11,666
$175,000
Tanker 29
1991
15
$175,000
$11,666
$151,658
Brush 297
1974
10
$65,000
$6,500
$65,000
Squad 294
1997
10
$85,000
$8,500
$59,500
Squad 296
2003
10
$85,000
$8,500
$8,500
TOTALS
$46,832
$459,658
89
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
It should be noted that this replacement funding chart represents funding levels needed for a capital replacement fund that is both adequate and up-to-date, assuring cash is available for purchase at the expected time of replacement. This is not meant to exclude other funding methods from consideration.
Staffing Staffing is provided by two full-time career employees working 40 hours per week. Additionally, part-time employees work to fill an additional 194 hour per week, including weekends. Each weekday consists of one 40 hour per week employee and one or two part time employees. Job descriptions have not been written for all positions. The fire chief and firefighters are at-will employees. Administrative and Support Staffing The administrative staff is very limited. Human resource and payroll duties are provide by the city. All other support work is provided by the current operational staff as an additional duty. Operational Staffing The current staffing consists of career personnel, part time employees, and 15 volunteers; with two paid employees assigned to each shift. Staffing is provided on a 40 hour split week basis where by the fire chief works Monday and Friday while the firefighter works Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Volunteers are currently used within the organization to enhance the delivery system. Typically, both shift members respond on the first due piece of equipment. However, if needed, crews are split to bring additional apparatus.
Service Delivery Incident Preparation and Management Pre-fire plans have not been developed for all city occupancies. The ICS system adopted by ACFR for use in Alachua County is used on all major incidents. However, no formal accountability system is in place. Hazardous materials response beyond the first responder level is provided by the regional hazardous materials response team. Standards of Coverage The agency utilizes the standards of coverage adopted by Alachua County Fire Rescue for the unincorporated regions of the County as its standard response protocol without modification. This standard of coverage specifies the quantity and type of apparatus responded to various types of incidents based on critical tasks to be performed. 90
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
A maximum turnout time of 2 minutes has been established by the county before dispatchers repeat the dispatch and add an adjacent station to the assignment. Turnout time of 5:00 or greater is considered a non-response under the terms of the County contract. Department staff indicated a turnout time objective of one minute and a total response time of four minutes within the City had been informally adopted by the department. Emergency Medical Services The department provides Basic Life Support response. The county medical director provides oversight for all EMS response and provides quality assurance review for all paramedics, when applicable. The department follows the county’s established medical protocols. Deployment Strategy / Response Time Capabilities High Springs Fire Department maintains one fire station within its response area. The following map displays the total primary response area of the agency as well as the station location. In addition, street segments shaded in red demonstrate those areas within a six-minute travel time of the station, while those shaded in green demonstrate those areas within an eight-minute travel time. Non-shaded street segments are beyond an eight-minute travel time.
91
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 6: High Springs FD Current Station Deployment
High Springs FD #29
\ &
ACFR Medic #20 \ &
^ -------------
Fire station Streets within six travel minutes of a fire station Streets within eight travel minutes of a fire station
Training and Competencies Under its contract with Alachua County, the department is required to maintain certain minimum training standards, including the successful completion of the Florida Volunteer Firefighter certification course in the case of volunteers and possession of a Certificate of Compliance under Florida statutes in the case of paid firefighters. The County contract also requires attendance by all firefighters to three specific fire trainings annually and six specific medical trainings every two years. However, according to interviews with department staff, recruits for paid positions must be a minimum of only FF1 and EMT before being considered for employment and there are no recruitment requirements or minimal training certifications for volunteer participation. Minimum training levels have not been established for each position. 92
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Training records are maintained on the department computer. No formal fire officer training is provided. There is no established training program and monthly training is not required or provided to either career or volunteers. The department does not provide a physical ability test for existing employees; and minimal skill testing is not provided to any employee.
93
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Town of LaCrosse Fire Department General Description The LaCrosse Fire Department is a department of the Town of LaCrosse, which is a governmental entity, formed under the laws of the State of Florida and granted authority to levy taxes for the purposes of providing fire and emergency medical services as part the city government. The department’s jurisdiction encompasses the entire city limits. In addition, the Town maintains a contract to provide service to a portion of Alachua County and as a result receives additional funding from the county. The response area includes small-town development, suburban neighborhoods, and some remaining rural areas of Alachua County. LFD provides emergency services to a population of 3,971 in an area of roughly 83 square miles. The town accounts for only 6 square miles of the protection area. Services are provided from one station located within the city limits. The department currently has an ISO rating of 9 in the city and 9 in rural areas. There are no fire hydrants in the city or the contract area. The department maintains a fleet of vehicles including two fire engines, one water tender, one wildland vehicle, and one squad. The department provides a variety of services including fire suppression, victim rescue, Basic Life Support emergency medical response, first responder-level hazardous materials response, minimal code enforcement, and limited public fire safety education. The department responded to 406 calls for service in the previous year. There are 19 individuals involved in delivering services to the jurisdiction. The department has a volunteer chief, assistant chief, and 14 other volunteer line personnel, plus 3 additional paid fire fighters. Of the roster of employees, all are assigned to the operations division. Primary staffing coverage for all emergency response is provided by paid, on-duty personnel with volunteers responding on an on-call basis.
Structure and Governance The organization’s authority to provide service is gained through the city charter and from the State of Florida. The fire chief’s position is an elected position and the membership makes that selection. Authority of the fire chief is defined by job descriptions, and written policies are in place within the by-laws setting the roles of the fire chief and other department members. New volunteer members are voted in, however, the fire chief is empowered to terminate. 94
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Financial controls are in place and are defined as well as monitored by the fire department Board of Directors. Unity of command is defined and everyone reports to the fire chief through their respective officer. The operating division uses a top-down, single division, hierarchy. Department programs are not defined nor monitored for compliance. Job descriptions are maintained and need to be revised. Paid firefighters are governed by La Crosse Fire Department rules and regulations and the La Crosse volunteers are governed by their by-laws. The chief’s span of control is very manageable. The ISO rating is currently 9 within the city limits and 9 in the contract area. Minimal planning elements are in place and do not include a current mission statement. An organizational vision has not been established. Foundational administrative policies are adopted, reviewed for consistency, and each member is provided a copy. Copies are maintained in each work place and training is provided to all employees. Critical issues and challenges are not identified. Future challenges are also not identified. An annual report is not produced. Training records are maintained within the organization. Exposure records are maintained by Alachua County. Fire reports are maintained and submitted to the State Fire Marshals Office.
Finance An analysis of available financial information for the organization indicates total budgeted expenditures for fire protection of $133,894, of which approximately 95% is received from the County contract. Based on the total of parcel values served in the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost per $1,000 of assessed value is approximately $1.30. Based on the population of the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost is approximately $33.72 per resident.
Capital Assets and Resources As stated earlier, the LaCrosse Fire Department operates one fire station. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the station.
95
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
La Crosse Fire Department Fire Station # 22 The facility is an older fire station with very limited space, consisting of one apparatus bay in the front, two in the rear, and one on the side. The age and size of the building presents many concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Unsure of the date of construction. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Not designed for two-gender staffing, bunk beds for sleeping and lockers are not well suited for privacy. Sleeping is confined to one room, which is relatively small.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to high maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
Problems noted. No fire detection system installed, no sprinkler system. No auxiliary generator power
•
Environment:
No problems noted.
•
Code Compliance:
Station has many code compliance issues, due primarily to age and member-performed renovations.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station is small and has limited room for firefighters to have any privacy. Station is not well maintained or clean. Insufficient space for all necessary functions. Limited or no gender considerations.
•
Efficiency:
This station lacks planned efficiency for staff and visitors.
The department operates several pieces of firefighting apparatus. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the primary response apparatus. Definitions of the condition assessment ratings can be found in the appendix section of the report.
96
Alachua County, Florida
Unit
Vehicle
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Year
Condition
Pump
Tank
GPM
Size
Seats
Meets NFPA
Remarks Well Equipped,
1988
E-22
Good
1250
1000
2
Yes
no problems noted Well Equipped,
1998
T-22
Good
500
3000
2
Yes
no problems noted
Vehicle Not P-22
Available For
1973
Poor
750
500
2
No
Inspection
Older unit used as a reserve Older unit with
1972
B-22
Poor
500
250
2
No
mechanical problems Well Equipped,
1996
S-22
Chevy
N/A
N/A
2
No
no problems noted
The following chart list the primary heavy apparatus used by the department, excluding smaller commercial-style utility or staff vehicles. It includes current age, life expectancy, and roughly estimated replacement-funding requirements. Table 16: LaCrosse Apparatus Replacement Funding Table
Unit
Year
Life
Replacement Cost
Annual Fund Contribution
Current Cash Requirement
Engine 22
1988
15
$175,000
$11,666
$175,000
Tanker 22
1998
15
$175,000
$11,666
$69,996
Pumper 22
1973
15
$175,000
$11,666
$175,000
Brush 22
1972
10
$65,000
$6,500
$65,000
Squad 22
1996
10
$85,000
$8,500
$68,000
TOTALS
$47,998
$552,996
97
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
It should be noted that this replacement funding chart represents funding levels needed for a capital replacement fund that is both adequate and up-to-date, assuring cash is available for purchase at the expected time of replacement. This is not meant to exclude other funding methods from consideration.
Staffing Staffing is provided by the La Crosse Fire Department with paid employees, supplemented by volunteer responders. Paid firefighters do not receive any benefits such as pension, health care, vacation or sick time. Each shift consists of one firefighter. The volunteer fire chief spends additional time in the office meeting the needs of the organization. Job descriptions have been written for all positions. The fire chief is an elected position and controlled by the Board of Directors, and the paid firefighters are controlled by La Crosse Fire Department contract. Administrative and Support Staffing All support work is provided by the current operational staff as additional duties, since an administrative staff is non-existent. Operational Staffing The current staffing consists of paid personnel and volunteers, with one employee assigned to each shift. Staffing is provided on a 3-day rotation; volunteers are currently used within the organization to assist in the delivery system. Typically the shift member responds on the first due piece of equipment.
Service Delivery Incident Preparation and Management Pre-fire plans have been developed for some of the city occupancies. Training is provided to enhance emergency delivery. ICS is used on all major incidents, and when needed, the regional system is put in place. A formal accountability system is in place. Hazardous materials response beyond the first responder level is provide by the regional hazardous material response team. Standards of Coverage A maximum turnout time of 2 minutes has been established by the county before dispatchers repeat the dispatch and add an adjacent station to the assignment. Turnout time of 5:00 or greater is considered a non-response under the terms of the County contract. Department staff indicated no additional turnout time objectives had been 98
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
adopted by the department. The agency utilizes the standards of coverage adopted by Alachua County Fire Rescue for the unincorporated regions of the County as its standard response protocol without modification. This standard of coverage specifies the quantity and type of apparatus responded to various types of incidents based on critical tasks to be performed. Emergency Medical Services The department provides Basic Life Support first-responder service. The county medical director provides oversight for all EMS response. The department follows the county’s established medical protocols. Deployment Strategy / Response Time Capabilities LaCrosse Fire Department maintains one fire station within its response area. A specific turnout time has not been established; nor has a response time performance goal been established. The following map displays the total primary response area of the agency as well as the station location. In addition, street segments shaded in red demonstrate those areas within a six-minute travel time of the station, while those shaded in green demonstrate those areas within an eight-minute travel time. Non-shaded street segments are beyond an eight-minute travel time.
99
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 7: LaCrosse FD Current Station Deployment
LaCrosse FD #22
\ &
^ -------------
Fire station Streets within six travel minutes of a fire station Streets within eight travel minutes of a fire station
Training and Competencies Under its contract with Alachua County, the department is required to maintain certain minimum training standards, including the successful completion of the Florida Volunteer Firefighter certification course in the case of volunteers and possession of a Certificate of Compliance under Florida statutes in the case of paid firefighters. The County contract also requires attendance by all firefighters to three specific fire trainings annually and six specific medical trainings every two years. However, interviews with staff indicated no requirement for FF2 for the paid staff, a requirement for the Certificate of Compliance.
100
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Recruit training is provided in basic safety, basic firefighting, Fire Fighter I, and hazardous materials awareness. Fire officer training is not consistently offered. The department is the process of upgrading all firefighter certifications to meet the state standard of (160) hour basic firefighter course. The department does not provide a physical ability test for existing volunteers and minimal skill testing is not provided to any volunteer.
101
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Melrose Volunteer Fire Department General Description The Melrose Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., is a private organization formed as a 401C non-profit entity, formed under the laws of the State of Florida and granted authority to provide fire and emergency medical services through their contract with Alachua County to provide service to a portion of Alachua County. The response area includes some suburban neighborhoods and large rural areas of Alachua County, as well as portions of Clay and Bradford counties. As a result of its contracts, the department receives funding from the counties, which accounts for virtually 100% of the operating budget. Additionally; per the organizational bylaws, community members “shall be expected to make annual contribution which shall be considered as dues.” Within Alachua County, MVFD provides emergency services to a population of approximately 1579 in an area of roughly 30 square miles. These services are provided from one station located within the community of Melrose in Putnam County. The department currently has an ISO rating of 5 in the hydranted areas and 9 in rural areas. The department has access to fire hydrants in an area referred to as “old town”, but there are none in the contract area. The department maintains a fleet of vehicles including two fire engines, two water tenders, one wildland vehicle, one squad, along with a utility vehicle. There are no vehicles available in a reserve. The department provides a variety of services including fire suppression, victim rescue, first-responder BLS emergency medical response, first responder-level hazardous materials response, minimal code enforcement, and limited public fire safety education. The department responded to 626 calls for service in the pervious year of which 41% were of a medical nature, while only 4% were fire related. There are 14 individuals involved in delivering services to the jurisdiction. The department has a volunteer chief, and 13 line volunteer personnel. Alachua County Fire and Rescue provides one paid fire fighter. All personnel are assigned to the operations division. Primary staffing coverage for all daytime emergency response is provided by the on-duty ACFR firefighter working an 8 hour shift supported by on-call response of volunteers. The balance of time, the service is all volunteer.
102
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Structure and Governance The organization’s authority to provide service is gained from its contract with Alachua County. The fire chief is appointed by the Board of Directors. The fire chief’s authority is clearly defined by organizational by-laws, and written policies are in place within the bylaws setting the responsibilities of the fire chief and other department members. The fire chief determines qualifications of fire fighters and is empowered to accept volunteers and, with Board approval, expel or terminate volunteers. The ACFR employee is governed by ACFR rules and regulations and answers to a county supervisor. Financial controls are in place and are defined and monitored by the Board of Directors. Unity of command is defined and everyone reports to the fire chief through their respective officer. The operating division uses a top-down, single division, hierarchy. The paid firefighter is governed by ACFR rules and regulation and the Melrose volunteers are governed by their by-laws. The chief’s span of control is very manageable. Minimal organizational planning elements are in place, however, a current mission statement does exist in the by-laws. An organizational vision has not been established. Critical issues and challenges are not identified. Future challenges are also not identified. Performance objectives include a turnout time of 2 minutes and the response time performance goal is 12 minutes. Foundational administrative policies are adopted, reviewed for consistency; and each member is provided a copy. Copies are maintained in the work place and training is provided to all employees. An annual report is not produced. Training records are maintained within the organization. Exposure records are maintained by Alachua County. Fire reports are maintained and submitted to the State Fire Marshals Office.
Finance An analysis of available financial information for the organization indicates total budgeted expenditures for fire protection in the Alachua County area of $86,268. This figure includes the cost of the ACFR firefighter assigned to the station, since the firefighter’s salary is deducted from payments made by Alachua County to Melrose.
103
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Based on the total of parcel values served in the entire response area of the agency (Alachua County portion only), the annual fire protection cost per $1000 of assessed value is approximately $1.37. Based on the population of the entire Alachua County response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost is approximately $54.63 per resident.
Capital Assets and Resources As stated earlier, the Melrose Volunteer Fire Department operates one fire station. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the station.
Melrose Volunteer Fire Department Fire Station # 24 This is an older facility consisting of four apparatus bays in the front. The age of the building presents many concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Unsure of the date of construction. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories: Design:
Basic design as a volunteer fire station. Not designed for fulltime staffing.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to slightly higher than normal maintenance costs. Bays in the front are not drive-through and may not be big enough for future fire apparatus. Kitchen and day room are not adequate for staffing.
•
Safety:
Few problems noted. Fire detection system installed, no sprinkler system. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
Not equipped with an automatic exhaust system for vehicles.
Code Compliance:
Building is not ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station was built as a volunteer fire station and does not meet provisions of a manned fire station. No dorms, one bathroom.
•
Efficiency:
Facility lacks planned efficiency for staff and visitors.
•
The department operates several pieces of firefighting apparatus. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the primary response apparatus. Definitions of the condition assessment ratings can be found in the appendix section of the report.
104
Alachua County, Florida
Unit
Vehicle
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Year
Condition
Pump
Tank
GPM
Size
Seats
Meets NFPA
Remarks Well Equipped,
2001
E-241
Excellent
1000
750
4
Yes
no problems noted Well Equipped,
1987
E-242
Serviceable
1250
1000
4
Yes
no problems noted Well Equipped,
1997
T-243
Good
750
2750
2
Yes
no problems noted
T-246
1974
Serviceable
N/A
1300
2
No
B-244
1999
Good
125
240
2
N/A
1999
Excellent
2
N/A
S2401
Minimal Equipment
Standard brush unit
Squad Unit
The following chart lists the primary heavy apparatus used by the department, excluding smaller commercial-style utility or staff vehicles. It includes current age, life expectancy, and roughly estimated replacement-funding requirements. Table 17: Melrose Apparatus Replacement Funding Table
Unit
Year
Life
Replacement Cost
Annual Fund Contribution
Current Cash Requirement
Engine 241
1997
15
$175,000
$11,666
$81,662
Engine 242
1976
20
$275,000
$13,750
$275,000
Tanker 243
1998
15
$225,000
$15,000
$90,000
Tanker 246
1974
15
$175,000
$11,666
$175,000
Brush 244
1999
10
$65,000
$6,500
$32,000
Squad 2401
1999
10
$85,000
$8,500
$42,500
TOTALS
$67,082
$696,162
105
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
It should be noted that this replacement funding chart represents funding levels needed for a capital replacement fund that is both adequate and up-to-date, assuring cash is available for purchase at the expected time of replacement. This is not meant to exclude other funding methods from consideration.
Staffing The staffing is provided by an ACFR career employee and volunteers. Job descriptions have been written for the ACFR employee only. The fire chief is an appointed position controlled by the Board of Directors, and the paid firefighter is controlled by an ACFR contract. Administrative and Support Staffing All support work is provided by the current operational staff as an additional duty since administrative staff is non-existent. The volunteer fire chief spends significant time in the office meeting the needs of the organization. Operational Staffing Current staffing consists of career personnel and volunteers, with one ACFR career employee assigned each day working an 8 hour, 5 day per week schedule. ACFR provides coverage of sick leave and vacation. Volunteers are also used in the delivery system. Typically, the shift member responds on the first due piece of equipment.
Service Delivery Incident Preparation and Management Pre-fire plans have been developed for a majority of occupancies within the area. Training on these preplans is provided to enhance emergency service delivery. The incident command system adopted for use by ACFR is used by Melrose on all major incidents and, when needed the regional system is put in place. A formal accountability system is not in place. Hazardous materials response beyond the first-responder level is provided by Gainesville Fire Department. Standards of Coverage A maximum turnout time of 2 minutes has been established by the county before dispatchers repeat the dispatch and add an adjacent station to the assignment. Turnout time of 5:00 or greater is considered a non-response under the terms of the County contract. Department staff indicated a total response time objective of twelve minutes had been informally adopted by the department. The agency utilizes the standards of coverage adopted by Alachua County Fire Rescue for the unincorporated regions of the 106
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
County as its standard response protocol without modification. This standard of coverage specifies the quantity and type of apparatus responded to various types of incidents based on critical tasks to be performed. Emergency Medical Services The department provides first-responder medical response at the BLS level, though the ACFR employee may be a certified paramedic. The county medical director provides oversight for all EMS response and provides quality assurance review for all paramedics, if applicable. The department follows the county’s established medical protocols. Deployment Strategy / Response Time Capabilities Melrose Volunteer Fire Department maintains one fire station within its response area. The following map displays the total primary response area of the agency (within Alachua County only) as well as the location of the station. In addition, street segments shaded in red demonstrate those areas within a six-minute travel time of the station, while those shaded in green demonstrate those areas within an eight-minute travel time. Non-shaded street segments are beyond an eight-minute travel time.
107
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 8: Melrose VFD Current Station Deployment
Melrose FD #24
\ & \ &
ACFR Medic #8
^ -------------
Fire station Streets within six travel minutes of a fire station Streets within eight travel minutes of a fire station
Training and Competencies Under its contract with Alachua County, the department is required to maintain certain minimum training standards, including the successful completion of the Florida Volunteer Firefighter certification course in the case of volunteers and possession of a Certificate of Compliance under Florida statutes in the case of paid firefighters. The County contract also requires attendance by all firefighters to three specific fire trainings annually and six specific medical trainings every two years. The department reports that recruit training is provide in basic safety, basic firefighting, Fire Fighter I, and hazardous materials awareness and that the required minimum training levels have been established for each position. Records are maintained on the department computer. The organization is currently converting all fire fighters to FF 1 from the 30 hour basic certification.
108
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Fire officer training is not consistently offered. Each member receives an average of 24 hours of training per year. The department does not provide a physical ability test for existing volunteers and minimal skill testing is not provided to any volunteer.
109
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Town of Micanopy Fire Department General Description The Micanopy Fire Department is a department of the Town of Micanopy, which is a governmental entity, formed under the laws of the State of Florida and granted authority to levy taxes for the purposes of providing fire and emergency medical services as part of the town government. The department’s jurisdiction encompasses the entire town limits. In addition, the department maintains a contract to provide service to a portion of Alachua County and, as a result, receives additional funding from the county. The response area includes small town development, suburban neighborhoods, and some remaining rural areas of Alachua County. MFD provides emergency services to a population of 2266 in an area of roughly 64 square miles. The town accounts for less than 2 square miles of the protection area. These services are provided from one station located within the town limits. The department currently has an ISO rating of 6 in the town and 9 in rural areas. Fire hydrants are available in 100 percent of the town limits and none in the contract area. The department maintains a fleet of vehicles including one fire engine, and one quick response vehicle. There is one vehicle available in reserve. The department provides a variety of services including fire suppression, victim rescue, BLS first-responder emergency medical response, first responder-level hazardous materials response, minimal code enforcement, and limited public fire safety education. The department responded to 383 calls for service in the pervious year; of which 22% were of a medical nature, 3% were fire related, with the remainder being miscellaneous service calls. There are 18 individuals involved in delivering services to the jurisdiction. The department has two chief officers, 12 part time personnel, and is assisted by 4 volunteers. Of the roster of employees, 18 are assigned to the operations division. Primary staffing coverage for all emergency response is provided by on-duty part time firefighters working 24 hour shifts. Volunteers are on an on-call basis and participate in the delivery system as their schedules permit.
110
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Structure and Governance The organization’s authority to provide service is gained through the town charter and from the State of Florida. Authority of the fire chief is clearly defined by job description, and written policies are in place setting the roles of the fire chief and other department members. Financial controls are in place and are defined as well as monitored by the town finance officer. Unity of command is defined and everyone reports to either the fire chief of combat or the fire chief of EMS through their respective shift officer. The operating division uses a top-down hierarchy. Department programs are not defined or monitored for compliance. Formal job descriptions are currently being developed. The chiefs’ span of control is very manageable. Some organizational planning elements are in place, though there is no adopted mission statement. An organizational vision has not been established. Critical issues and challenges have been identified with upgrading apparatus as the number one priority and the need to address their current facility as the number two priority. Future challenges are identified and consist of the need to address staffing and growth of the community. Performance objectives have been established, with a one-minute turnout time and an overall response time performance goal of less than ten minutes having been adopted. Foundational administrative policies are adopted, reviewed for consistency; and each member is provided a copy. Copies are maintained in each work place and training is provided to all employees. Training records are maintained within the organization. Exposure records are maintained by Alachua County. Fire reports are maintained and submitted to the State Fire Marshals Office.
Finance An analysis of available financial information for the organization indicates total budgeted expenditures for fire protection of $147,050, of which approximately 75% is received from the county contract. Based on the total of parcel values served in the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost per $1000 of assessed value is approximately $1.56. Based on the population of the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost is approximately $64.89 per resident.
111
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Capital Assets and Resources As stated earlier, the Micanopy Fire Department operates one fire station. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the station.
Micanopy Fire Department Fire Station # 26 Built in 1976 and consisting of two drive-through apparatus bays. This station was not designed for 24-hour staffing and faces many maintenance problems. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
This station does not meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to high maintenance costs. Kitchen and day room are not adequate for staffing.
•
Safety:
Some problems noted. Fire detection system installed, no sprinkler system. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
Not equipped with an automatic exhaust system for vehicles.
Code Compliance:
Building is not ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station was built as a volunteer fire station and does not meet standards as a manned fire station. No dorms, no day room one bathroom. Exercise equipment is located on the apparatus floor. Insufficient space for all necessary functions. No gender considerations.
•
Efficiency:
The facility lacks planned efficiency for staff and visitors..
The department owns several pieces of firefighting apparatus. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the primary response apparatus. Definitions of the condition assessment ratings can be found in the appendix section of the report.
112
Alachua County, Florida
Unit
Vehicle
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Year
Condition
Pump
Tank
GPM
Size
Seats
Meets NFPA
Remarks Equipped with
1994
E-26
Good
1250
1000
4
Yes
basic tools, no problems noted
P-26
Vehicle Not Available For Inspection
Vehicle not 1973
Poor
750
750
2
No
used a regular basis Vehicle not
1981
S-26
Poor
N/A
N/A
2
No
used on a regular basis
The following chart list the primary heavy apparatus used by the department, excluding smaller commercial-style utility or staff vehicles. It includes current age, life expectancy, and roughly estimated replacement-funding requirements. Table 18: Micanopy Apparatus Replacement Funding Table Unit
Year
Life
Replacement Cost
Annual Fund Contribution
Current Cash Requirement
Engine 26
1994
15
$175,000
$11,666
$116,660
Pumper 26
1973
15
$175,000
$11,666
$175,000
Squad 26
1979
10
$85,000
$8,500
$85,000
TOTALS
$ 31,832
$376,660
It should be noted that this replacement funding chart represents funding levels needed for a capital replacement fund that is both adequate and up-to-date, assuring cash is available for purchase at the expected time of replacement. This is not meant to exclude other funding methods from consideration.
113
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Staffing Staffing is provided by part-time employees working 24 hour shifts. Each shift consists of two firefighters. A chief officer works one of these shifts and spends additional time in the office meeting the needs of the organization. Job descriptions have not been written for any position other than the fire chiefs. The fire chiefs are at-will employees, as are all other employees. Administrative and Support Staffing The administrative staff is very limited. Human resource and payroll duties are provided by the town. All other support work is provided by the current operational staff as an additional duty. Operational Staffing Current staffing consists of two paid chief officers, part time employees, and limited volunteers. One or two part time employees are assigned to each shift. Staffing is provided on a constant basis. Volunteers are currently used within the organization to assist in the delivery system. Typically, both shift members respond on the first due piece of equipment. However, if needed, crews are split to bring additional apparatus.
Service Delivery Incident Preparation and Management Pre-fire plans have been developed for a majority of town occupancies; however they are out dated. Training is provided to enhance emergency delivery. ICS is used on all major incidents and, when needed, the regional system is put in place. However, no formal accountability system is in place. Hazardous materials response beyond the first responder level is provide by Gainesville Fire Department. Standards of Coverage The agency utilizes the standards of coverage adopted by Alachua County Fire Rescue for the unincorporated regions of the County as its standard response protocol without modification. This standard of coverage specifies the quantity and type of apparatus responded to various types of incidents based on critical tasks to be performed. Emergency Medical Services The department provides Basic Life Support response as a first-responder agency. The county medical director provides oversight for all EMS response and provides quality assurance review for all paramedics, if applicable. The department follows the county’s established medical protocols. According to interviews with department staff, the 114
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
department has expressed an interest in providing ALS services from within the community, since many of the paid personnel are state certified paramedics who work for Micanopy on their time off from full-time firefighter paramedic positions in other communities. Deployment Strategy / Response Time Capabilities Micanopy Fire Department maintains one fire station within its response area. The following map displays the total primary response area of the agency as well as the station location. In addition, street segments shaded in red demonstrate those areas within a six-minute travel time of the station, while those shaded in green demonstrate those areas within an eight-minute travel time. Non-shaded street segments are beyond an eight-minute travel time. Figure 9: Micanopy FD Current Station Deployment
Micanopy FD #26
\ &
^ -------------
Fire station Streets within six travel minutes of a fire station Streets within eight travel minutes of a fire station
115
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Training and Competencies Under its contract with Alachua County, the department is required to maintain certain minimum training standards, including the successful completion of the Florida Volunteer Firefighter certification course in the case of volunteers and possession of a Certificate of Compliance under Florida statutes in the case of paid firefighters. The County contract also requires attendance by all firefighters to three specific fire trainings annually and six specific medical trainings every two years. Paid personnel are off-duty career firefighters and have achieved appropriate compliance with entry requirements. However, interviews with department staff indicated that there are no recruitment requirements or minimal training certifications for volunteer participation and that minimum training levels have not been established for each position. Records are maintained on the department computer. Limited fire officer training is provided. There is no established training program and structured monthly training is not required or provided to either career or volunteers. The department does not provide a physical ability test for existing employees; and minimum skill testing is not provided to any employee.
116
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
City of Newberry Fire Department General Description The Newberry Fire Department is a department of the City of Newberry, which is a governmental entity, formed under the laws of the State of Florida and granted authority to levy taxes for the purposes of providing fire and emergency medical services as part of the city government. The department’s jurisdiction encompasses the entire city limits. In addition, the department maintains a contract to provide service to a portion of Alachua County and, as a result, receives additional funds from the county. The response area includes city development, suburban neighborhoods, and some remaining rural areas of Alachua County. NFD provides emergency services to a population of approximately 5,170 in an area of roughly 79 square miles. These services are provided from one station located within the city limits. The department currently has an ISO rating of 5 in the city and 9 in rural areas. The department has access to fire hydrants in approximately 90% of the developed city areas and limited sections of the contract area. The department maintains a fleet of vehicles including one fire engine, one tanker, one aerial truck, two wildland vehicles, and one specialty / utility vehicle. There are no vehicles available in reserve. There are 16 individuals involved in delivering these services to the jurisdiction. The department has a chief, 1 captain, and 14 line personnel. Of the roster of employees, 14 are assigned to the operations division, and the other two are administrative. The primary staffing coverage for all emergency response is provided by on-duty career firefighters working 24 hour shifts. The City and Alachua County Fire have an employeetrade agreement wherein the city provides the county with a firefighter trained at the EMT Basic level for each shift and the County provides the Newberry Fire Department with a paramedic/firefighter. This agreement aids the county in improving the ALS delivery within Newberry and the western portions of the County. The department provides a variety of services including fire suppression, victim rescue, Advanced Life Support emergency medical first response, first responder-level hazardous materials response, code enforcement, and public fire safety education.
117
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Structure and Governance The organization’s authority to provide service is gained through the city charter and from the State of Florida. Authority of the fire chief is clearly defined by city ordinance, and written policies are in place setting the roles of the fire chief and officers. Financial controls are in place and are defined as well as monitored by the city finance officer. Unity of command is defined and everyone reports to the fire chief through their respective shift officer. The operating division uses a single division, top-down hierarchy. Department programs are clearly defined and monitored for compliance. Formal job descriptions are maintained for all positions and are updated regularly. The fire chief’s span of control is very manageable. Planning elements are in place including a current mission statement. An organizational vision has been established which includes a statement of purpose for the organization with progression of services. Performance objectives have been established. A oneminute turnout time has been established with a response time performance goal of three minutes having been adopted. Critical issues and challenges are identified with the major issue being water supply for part of the city. Future challenges are identified and consist of the rapid growth of the service delivery area and the challenge it puts on the organization. Foundational administrative policies are adopted, reviewed for consistency; and each member is provided a copy. Copies are maintained in each work place and training is provided to all employees. An annual report is produced and provided to the city commissioners and made available to the public. Training records are maintained within the organization. Breathing apparatus fit test and exposure records are maintained by Alachua County. Fire reports are maintained and submitted to the State Fire Marshals Office.
Finance An analysis of available financial information for the organization indicates total budgeted expenditures for fire protection of $986,925, of which approximately 17% is received from the county contract. Based on the total of parcel values served in the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost per $1000 of assessed value is approximately $5.38. Based on the population of the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost is approximately $190.89 per resident. 118
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Capital Assets and Resources As stated earlier, the Newberry Fire Department operates one fire station. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the station.
Newberry Fire Department Fire Station # 28 This facility consists of two apparatus bays with the doors on each side. This station has a relatively up-to-date kitchen with a lot of room. An exercise area is equipped and located in the apparatus area. This station is aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. Unsure of the date of construction. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Aesthetically designed to fit the surrounding community structures. This station meets the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to minimal maintenance costs.
•
Safety:
No problems noted. No fire detection system installed, No sprinkler system installed. No auxiliary generator power. Vehicles respond out of the station by side apparatus exits onto two different streets.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted
Code Compliance:
Building is not fully ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station is designed for two gender staffing. Not much room for firefighters to have any privacy. Equipped with dual gender bathrooms and showers. Station is well-maintained and clean. Insufficient space for all necessary functions.
•
Efficiency:
No problems noted. Reasonably efficient design.
The department operates several pieces of firefighting apparatus. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the primary response apparatus. Definitions of the condition assessment ratings can be found in the appendix section of the report.
119
Alachua County, Florida
Unit
Vehicle
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Year
Condition
Pump
Tank
GPM
Size
Seats
Meets NFPA
Remarks
Equipped with 1977
E-281
Serviceable
1250
750
4
No
basic tools, no problems noted
Equipped with 1995
T-283
Good
350
2300
2
Yes
basic tools, no problems noted
Vehicle Not Q-282
Available For
1999
Inspection
Good, per NFD
Vehicle not 1250
750
4
available for inspection Equipped with
2002
S-28
Excellent
350
300
4
No
basic equipment, no problems noted Equipped with
1992
B-28
Good
250
300
2
No
basic tools, no problems noted Vehicle not
Vehicle Not B-284
Available For
1989
Fair
250
300
2
No
available for inspection
Inspection
The following chart list the primary heavy apparatus used by the department, excluding smaller commercial-style utility or staff vehicles. It includes current age, life expectancy, and roughly estimated replacement-funding requirements. Table 19: Newberry Apparatus Replacement Funding Table
Unit
Year
Life
Replacement Cost
Annual Fund Contribution
Current Cash Requirement
Engine 281
1977
20
$275,000
$13,750
$275,000
Tanker 283 Quint 282
1995
15
$175,000
$11,666
$104,994
1999
20
$475,000
$23,750
$118,750
Squad 28
2002
10
$85,000
$8,500
$17,000
Brush 28
1992
10
$65,000
$6,500
$65,000
Brush 284
1989
10
$65,000
$6,500
$65,000
TOTALS
$70,666
$ 645,744
120
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
It should be noted that this replacement funding chart represents funding levels needed for a capital replacement fund that is both adequate and up-to-date, assuring cash is available for purchase at the expected time of replacement. This is not meant to exclude other funding methods from consideration.
Staffing The staffing is provided by all career employees working a 24 / 48 rotating shift. Each shift is staffed by a lieutenant, driver / operator, and two firefighters. The 40 hour per week captain provides shift oversight and fire prevention activities. Job descriptions have been written for all positions and are reviewed periodically. The fire chief is an at-will employee. All other members are part of the collective bargaining unit. Administrative and Support Staffing The administrative staff is very limited. Human resource and payroll duties are provided by the city. All other support work is provided by the current operational staff as an additional duty. Operational Staffing Current staffing consists of career personnel only, with four assigned to each shift. Staffing is provided on a 3-day rotation, with mandatory overtime and call back. No volunteers are used within the organization. Typically, all four shift members respond on the first due piece of equipment. However, if needed, crews are split to bring additional apparatus.
Service Delivery Incident Preparation and Management Pre-fire plans have been developed for all city occupancies. Training is provided to enhance emergency delivery. ICS is used on all major incidents and when needed the regional system is put in place. However, no formal accountability system is in place. Hazardous materials response beyond the first responder level is provide by the regional response team. Standards of Coverage A maximum turnout time of 2 minutes has been established by the county before dispatchers repeat the dispatch and add an adjacent station to the assignment. Turnout time of 5:00 or greater is considered a non-response under the terms of the County contract. In addition, department staff indicated a turnout time objective of one minute and a total response time objective of three minutes had been informally adopted by the 121
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
department. The agency utilizes the standards of coverage adopted by Alachua County Fire Rescue for the unincorporated regions of the County as its standard response protocol without modification. This standard of coverage specifies the quantity and type of apparatus responded to various types of incidents based on critical tasks to be performed. Emergency Medical Services The department provides Advanced Life Support Paramedic response, however does not transport. The City and Alachua County Fire have an employee-trade agreement wherein the city provides the county with a firefighter trained at the EMT Basic level for each shift and the County provides the Newberry Fire Department with a paramedic/firefighter. This agreement aids the county in improving the ALS delivery within the contracted area. The county medical director provides oversight for all EMS response and provides quality assurance review for all paramedics. The department follows the county’s established medical protocols. Deployment Strategy / Response Time Capabilities Newberry Fire Department maintains one fire station within its response area. The following map displays the total primary response area of the agency as well as the station location. In addition, street segments shaded in red demonstrate those areas within a six-minute travel time of the station, while those shaded in green demonstrate those areas within an eight-minute travel time. Non-shaded street segments are beyond an eight-minute travel time.
122
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 10: Newberry FD Current Station Deployment
Newberry FD #28
\ &
\ &
^ -------------
Fire station Streets within six travel minutes of a fire station Streets within eight travel minutes of a fire station
Training and Competencies Under its contract with Alachua County, the department is required to maintain certain minimum training standards, including the successful completion of the Florida Volunteer Firefighter certification course in the case of volunteers and possession of a Certificate of Compliance under Florida statutes in the case of paid firefighters. The County contract also requires attendance by all firefighters to three specific fire trainings annually and six specific medical trainings every two years. Department staff confirmed these requirements were in place for their personnel and that minimum training levels have been established for each position. Records are maintained on the department computer. Fire officers are trained to Fire Officer II levels, and are also required to be at the Fire Instructor II level. Each member receives an average of 30 hours of training per month. The department does not provide a physical ability test for existing employees; and minimum skill testing is not provided to any employee with longevity greater than six months. 123
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
City of Waldo Fire Department General Description The Waldo Fire Department is a department of the City of Waldo, which is a governmental entity, formed under the laws of the State of Florida and granted authority to levy taxes for the purposes of providing fire and emergency medical services as part of the city government. The department’s jurisdiction encompasses the entire city limits. In addition, the department maintains a contract to provide service to a portion of Alachua County and, as a result, receives additional funding from the county. The response area includes urban city development, suburban neighborhoods, and some remaining rural areas of Alachua County. WFD provides emergency services to a population of 3,691 in an area of roughly 96 square miles. The city accounts for only 2 square miles of the protection area. Services are provided from one station located within the city limits. The department currently has an ISO rating of 6 in the city and 9 in rural areas. The city has access to fire hydrants in 100% of the city limits and about 3% of the contract area. The department maintains a fleet of vehicles including two fire engines, one water tender, one wildland vehicle, and one squads. There are no vehicles available in reserve. The department provides a variety of services including fire suppression, victim rescue, Basic Life Support emergency medical response, first responder-level hazardous materials response, minimal code enforcement, and limited public fire safety education. The department responded to 545 calls for service in the pervious year of which 76% were of a medical nature, while only 15% were fire related. There are 10 individuals involved in delivering services to the jurisdiction. The department has a chief and 5 line personnel. Of the roster of employees, 6 are assigned to the operations division. The department is also assisted by 4 volunteers. Primary staffing for all emergency response is provided by on-duty career firefighters working 24 hour shifts. Volunteers are on an on-call basis and participate in the delivery system as their schedules permit.
Structure and Governance The organization’s authority to provide service is gained through the city charter and from the State of Florida. Authority of the fire chief is clearly defined by city ordinance, and written policies are in place setting the roles of the fire chief and other department members. 124
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Financial controls are in place and are defined as well as monitored by the city finance officer. Unity of command is defined and everyone reports to the fire chief through their respective shift officer. The operating division uses a top-down, single division, hierarchy. Department programs are not defined or monitored for compliance. Formal job descriptions are limited and require attention. The chief’s span of control is very manageable. Some organizational planning elements are in place and include a current mission statement. An organizational vision has not been established. Critical issues and challenges are not identified. Future challenges are identified and consist of the need to address staffing and ambulance response times within the outlying response areas. Performance objectives include a one-minute turnout time, though a response time performance goal has not yet been identified. Foundational administrative policies are adopted, reviewed for consistency; and each member is provided a copy. Copies are maintained in each work place and training is provided to all employees. An annual report is produced and provided to the city officials and made available to the public. Training records are maintained within the organization. Exposure records are maintained by Alachua County. Fire reports are maintained and submitted to the State Fire Marshals Office.
Finance An analysis of available financial information for the organization indicates total budgeted expenditures for fire protection of $259,125, of which approximately 62% is received from the county contract. Based on the total of parcel values served in the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost per $1000 of assessed value is approximately $1.88. Based on the population of the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost is approximately $70.20 per resident.
Capital Assets and Resources As stated earlier, the Waldo Fire Department operates one fire station. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the station.
125
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Waldo Fire Department Fire Station # 23 This facility consists of one apparatus bay in the front, which is extra large, and firefighters use the bay door for parking multiple vehicles. Unsure of date of construction. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
This station does not appear to meet the four basic design considerations: multipurpose, multi-user, response to the basic responsibilities of the facility, long life (with a fifty year life span) and the ability to maintain flexibility during its life.
•
Construction:
Construction is design for two smaller units to respond out of and has led to high maintenance.
•
Safety:
Many problems noted. No fire detection system installed, no sprinkler system. No auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
No problems noted.
Code Compliance:
Building is not ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station is small and has limited room for firefighters to have any privacy. Station is not well maintained or clean. Insufficient space for all necessary functions. Limited gender considerations.
•
Efficiency:
This facility lacks planned efficiency for staff and visitors..
The department operates several pieces of firefighting apparatus. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the primary response apparatus. Definitions of the condition assessment ratings can be found in the appendix section of the report.
126
Alachua County, Florida
Unit
Vehicle
E-23
E231
Year
Condition
2001
Excellent
Vehicle Not Available For
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
1989
Good Per WFD
Inspection
Pump
Tank
GPM
Size
1250
1000
4
Yes
1000
1250
4
N/A
Seats
Meets NFPA
T-23
1987
Serviceable
250
1450
2
No
S-23
2001
Excellent
500
250
4
No
B-23
1967
Fair
500
500
2
No
Remarks
Well Equipped, no problems noted
Well Equipped, no problems noted
Military surplus unit B-231
The following chart list the primary heavy apparatus used by the department, excluding smaller commercial-style utility or staff vehicles. It includes current age, life expectancy, and roughly estimated replacement-funding requirements. Table 20: Waldo Apparatus Replacement Funding Table
Unit
Year
Life
Replacement Cost
Annual Fund Contribution
Current Cash Requirement
Engine 23
2001
15
$175,000
$11,666
$34,998
Engine 231
1989
15
$175,000
$11,666
$175,000
Tanker 23
1987
15
$175,000
$11,666
$175,000
Brush 23
1967
15
$175,000
$11,666
$175,000
Squad 23
2001
10
$85,000
$8,500
$25,500
TOTALS
$55,164
$585,498
It should be noted that this replacement funding chart represents funding levels needed for a capital replacement fund that is both adequate and up-to-date, assuring cash is available for purchase at the expected time of replacement. This is not meant to exclude other funding methods from consideration. 127
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Staffing The staffing is provided by career employees working a 24 / 48 rotating shift. Each shift consists of two firefighters. The fire chief works one of these shifts and spends additional time in the office meeting the needs of the organization. Job descriptions are limited. The fire chief is an at-will employee, as are all other employees. The department also maintains four volunteer firefighters. Administrative and Support Staffing The administrative staff is very limited. HR and payroll duties are provide by the city. All other support work is provided by the current operational staff as an additional duty. Operational Staffing Current staffing consists of career personnel and limited volunteers, with two career employees assigned to each shift. Staffing is provided on a 3-day rotation, with mandatory overtime and call back. Volunteers are used within the organization to assist in the delivery of services. Typically both shift members respond on the first due piece of equipment. However, if needed, crews are split to bring additional apparatus.
Service Delivery Incident Preparation and Management Pre-fire plans have been developed for a majority of the city occupancies. Training is provided to enhance emergency delivery. The incident command system adopted for use by ACFR is used on all major incidents. However, no formal accountability system is in place. Hazardous materials response beyond the first responder level is provided by the regional hazardous materials response team. Standards of Coverage A maximum turnout time of 2 minutes has been established by the county before dispatchers repeat the dispatch and add an adjacent station to the assignment. Turnout time of 5:00 or greater is considered a non-response under the terms of the County contract. Department staff indicated a turnout time objective of one minute had been informally adopted by the department. The agency utilizes the standards of coverage adopted by Alachua County Fire Rescue for the unincorporated regions of the County as its standard response protocol without modification. This standard of coverage specifies the quantity and type of apparatus responded to various types of incidents based on critical tasks to be performed.
128
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Emergency Medical Services The department provides BLS first response. The county medical director provides oversight for all EMS response. The department follows the county’s established medical protocols. Deployment Strategy / Response Time Capabilities Waldo Fire Department maintains one fire station within its response area. The following map displays the total primary response area of the agency as well as the station location. In addition, street segments shaded in red demonstrate those areas within a six-minute travel time of the station, while those shaded in green demonstrate those areas within an eight-minute travel time. Non-shaded street segments are beyond an eight-minute travel time. Figure 11: Waldo FD Current Station Deployment
Waldo FD #23
\ &
\ &
^ -------------
Fire station Streets within six travel minutes of a fire station Streets within eight travel minutes of a fire station
129
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Training and Competencies Under its contract with Alachua County, the department is required to maintain certain minimum training standards, including the successful completion of the Florida Volunteer Firefighter certification course in the case of volunteers and possession of a Certificate of Compliance under Florida statutes in the case of paid firefighters. The County contract also requires attendance by all firefighters to three specific fire trainings annually and six specific medical trainings every two years. According to interviews with department staff, volunteer recruits must complete the Alachua County Fire Academy prior to emergency response and appropriate minimum training levels have been established for each position. Records are maintained on the department computer. Fire officers are training to Fire Officer I levels. The department has one certified instructor. No ongoing training schedule has been established and there are no specific training hour requirements for either the career or volunteer staff. Volunteers are encouraged to train with the career firefighters whenever possible. The department does not provide a physical ability test for existing employees; and minimum skill testing is not provided to any employee.
130
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Windsor Volunteer Fire Department General Description The Windsor Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. is a private organization formed as a 401C non-profit incorporated entity, formed under the laws of the State of Florida and granted authority to provide fire and emergency medical services through their contract with Alachua County to provide service to a portion of Alachua County. The fire board answers to the Community Service Board. The department receives the majority of its funding from the county. The response area includes mostly rural areas of Alachua County. WVFD provides emergency services to a population of 1,247 in an area of roughly 46 square miles. Services are provided from one station located within the community of Windsor. The department currently has an ISO rating of 9 in the service areas. The department has no access to fire hydrants. The department maintains a fleet of vehicles including one fire engine, one water tender, and one wildland vehicle. There are no vehicles available in reserve. The department provides a variety of services including fire suppression, victim rescue, BLS-level emergency medical first response, first responder-level hazardous materials response, minimal code enforcement, and limited public fire safety education. The department responded to 230 calls for service in the pervious year of which 60% were of a medical nature, while only 39% were fire related. There are 8 individuals involved in delivering these services to the jurisdiction. The department has a volunteer chief, one paid firefighter/EMT and six line volunteer personnel. Of the roster of members, all 8 are assigned to the operations division. Primary staffing coverage for all emergency response during daytime hours is provided by the one on-duty employee working an 8 hour shift, with the balance of the day being covered by volunteers. Volunteers are on an on-call basis and participate in the delivery system as their schedules permit.
Structure and Governance The organization’s authority to provide service is gained through its contract to provide fire protection services with Alachua County. The fire chief is an appointed position and the Board of Directors makes that selection. Authority of the fire chief is clearly defined by organizational by-laws, and written policies are in place within the by-laws setting the roles of the fire chief and other department members. The fire chief determines 131
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
qualifications of fire fighters and is empowered to accept volunteers and, with Board approval, expel or terminate volunteers or paid staff. Financial controls are in place and are defined and monitored by the Board of Directors. Unity of command is defined and everyone reports to the fire chief through their respective officer. The operating division uses a single division, top-down hierarchy. Department programs are not defined nor monitored for compliance. Formal job descriptions are not maintained and updated. The Windsor volunteers are governed by their by-laws. The chief’s span of control is very manageable. No organizational planning elements are in place, including a current mission statement. An organizational vision has not been established. Critical issues and challenges are not formally identified, but perceived to be volunteer retention and lack of funding. A turnout time performance objective of two minutes has been established by the county, but no overall response time performance goal has been adopted. Foundational administrative policies are adopted, reviewed for consistency; and each member is provided a copy. Copies are maintained in the work place and training is provided to all employees. An annual report is not produced. Training records are maintained within the organization. Additionally, exposure records are maintained by Alachua County. Fire reports are maintained and submitted to the State Fire Marshals Office.
Finance An analysis of available financial information for the organization indicates total budgeted expenditures for fire protection of $61,268, of which approximately 97% is received from the county contract. Based on the total of parcel values served in the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost per $1000 of assessed value is approximately $2.00. Based on the population of the entire response area of the agency, the annual fire protection cost is approximately $49.13 per resident.
Capital Assets and Resources As stated earlier, the Windsor Volunteer Fire Department operates one fire station. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the station.
132
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Windsor Volunteer Fire Department Fire Station # 30 This older facility consists of three apparatus bays. There are several concerns related to maintenance, public access, staff facilities, safety and efficiency. Any specific problems, concerns or features with this facility can be classified into the following seven categories:
•
Design:
Basic design as a volunteer fire station
•
Construction:
Construction design has led to medium maintenance costs. Station is not adequate for staffing.
•
Safety:
Problems noted. Fire detection system installed, no sprinkler system. Building has auxiliary generator power.
• •
Environment:
Not equipped with an automatic exhaust system for vehicles.
Code Compliance:
Building is not ADA compliant.
•
Staff Facilities:
This station was built as a volunteer fire station and does not meet provisions for a manned fire station. No dorms or showers. Insufficient space for all necessary functions. Limited gender considerations.
•
Efficiency:
This facility lacks planned efficiency for staff and visitors..
The department operates several pieces of firefighting apparatus. The following evaluation and general condition assessment was conducted on the primary response apparatus. Definitions of the condition assessment ratings can be found in the appendix section of the report.
Unit
Vehicle
Year
Condition
Pump
Tank
GPM
Size
Seats
Meets NFPA
Remarks Equipped with
1984
E-30
Fair
1000
1000
2
No
basic tools, no problems noted
Vehicle Not T-30
Available For
Vehicle Not 1967
N/A
300
1300
2
No
Inspection
Available For Inspection Equipped with a
B-30
1984
Fair
250
300
2
No
slid out skid unit and class A foam pak
133
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The following chart list the primary heavy apparatus used by the department, excluding smaller commercial-style utility or staff vehicles. It includes current age, life expectancy, and roughly estimated replacement-funding requirements. Table 21: Windsor Apparatus Replacement Funding Table
Unit
Year
Life
Replacement Cost
Annual Fund Contribution
Current Cash Requirement
Engine 30
1984
15
$175,000
$11,666
$175,000
Tanker 30
1967
15
$175,000
$11,666
$175,000
Brush 30
1984
10
$65,000
$6,500
$65,000
TOTALS
$29,832
$415,000
It should be noted that this replacement funding chart represents funding levels needed for a capital replacement fund that is both adequate and up-to-date, assuring cash is available for purchase at the expected time of replacement. This is not meant to exclude other funding methods from consideration.
Staffing Staffing is provided by a career firefighter/EMT working an 8 hour, 5 day per week schedule. The volunteer fire chief spends additional time in the office meeting the needs of the organization. Job descriptions have not been written. The fire chief is an appointed position controlled by the Board of Directors, and the paid firefighter is controlled by the fire chief. Administrative and Support Staffing All support work is provided by the current operational staff as an additional duty, since administrative staff is non-existent. Operational Staffing Staffing is provided by one paid firefighter working an 8 hour, 5 day a week schedule. Volunteers are currently used within the organization to assist in the delivery system. Typically, the day staff member responds on the first due piece of equipment.
Service Delivery Incident Preparation and Management Pre-fire plans have been developed for the two commercial occupancies within the district. Training on these preplans has been provided to enhance emergency delivery. 134
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The incident command system adopted for use by ACFR is used on all major incidents. The ACFR formal accountability system is in place. Hazardous materials response beyond the first responder level is provide by the regional hazardous materials response team. Standards of Coverage A maximum turnout time of 2 minutes has been established by the county before dispatchers repeat the dispatch and add an adjacent station to the assignment. Turnout time of 5:00 or greater is considered a non-response under the terms of the County contract. Department staff indicated a turnout time objective of one minute had been informally adopted by the department. The agency utilizes the standards of coverage adopted by Alachua County Fire Rescue for the unincorporated regions of the County as its standard response protocol without modification. This standard of coverage specifies the quantity and type of apparatus responded to various types of incidents based on critical tasks to be performed. Emergency Medical Services The department provides first-responder medical response at the BLS level. The county medical director provides oversight for all EMS responses. The department follows the county’s established medical protocols. Deployment Strategy / Response Time Capabilities Windsor Volunteer Fire Department maintains one fire station within its response area. The following map displays the total primary response area of the agency as well as the station location. In addition, street segments shaded in red demonstrate those areas within a six-minute travel time of the station, while those shaded in green demonstrate those areas within an eight-minute travel time. Non-shaded street segments are beyond an eight-minute travel time.
135
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 12: Windsor VFD Current Station Deployment
\ &
Windsor VFD #30 \ &
^ -------------
Fire station Streets within six travel minutes of a fire station Streets within eight travel minutes of a fire station
Training and Competencies Recruit training is provided in basic safety, basic firefighting, Fire Fighter I, and hazardous materials awareness. Minimum training levels have been established for each position and records are maintained on the department computer. The organization is currently converting all fire fighters to Firefighter I from the 30 hour Basic certification. Fire officer training is not consistently offered. Each member receives an average of 20 hours of training per year. The department does not provide a physical ability test for existing volunteers and minimum skill testing is not provided to any volunteer.
136
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Alachua County Consolidated Communications Center Alachua County, through the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office, maintains and operates a regional communications center, managed by a full-time staff and Division Commander. This center functions as the dispatch point for all fire and emergency medical calls for the entire County, along with law enforcement calls within the city limits of Gainesville and Waldo, as well as the unincorporated areas of Alachua County. In addition, the center is the coordination point for the countywide mutual aid response system. The services provided to the fire and emergency medical services system are influenced by policy input from a representative from both ACFR and GFR. This input is provided during bi-weekly meetings with the center’s Division Commander. The dispatch center is located in a separate facility from other government functions, with the exception of Emergency Management programs, and is particularly well-suited and designed for the operation of a modern communication center. Security is excellent, and space was plentiful. Consoles and equipment were reasonably modern and efficient. This dispatch center is the primary Public Safety Answering Point for the entire county and, thus, calls must be transferred by direct line from the PSAP to non-participating law enforcement agencies. This call transfer is a one-button process and includes transfer of the ANI/ALI (Automatic Number and Location Identification) information on all 9-1-1 calls. A formal call processing time standard has been established, and spot checks are done as a measure of quality control according to interviews with the Communications Division Commander. Emergency Medical Dispatch protocols and pre-arrival instructions are utilized in the center. Personnel are trained and certified in the application of the EMD protocols, as well as the APCO telecommunicator standards. Computer-aided dispatch software is in use, but the program is old and has proven inflexible. The software operates on an AS400 computer platform. At the time of this study, a request for proposals had been written by the County for a replacement software solution, though funding has not yet been made available. The current CAD software has been adequately programmed to recommend multiple back-up response layers. 137
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Dispatch takes place by “specific unit dispatch”, with programmed assignment of specific apparatus quantities and types, for both Alachua County Fire Rescue and Gainesville Fire Rescue. The smaller fire departments are dispatched by general station announcement only. Apparatus availability for units is tracked by the software. Some limited application of GPS-based automatic vehicle location (AVL) is being used on ACFR ambulances and district commanders. Communications are provided through a digital trunked 800mhz radio system with twenty-two channels operating from five tower sites. Despite having well over 2,000 field radio units on the system, queuing of transmissions is reported to be very rare. Station notification takes place by encoded station radio alert and voice pagers. No in-station printers or direct-line station alert systems are installed. The dispatch center has adequate contingency plans for system failure. Back-up power is in place, spare consoles are available, and back-up transmitters function automatically. A functionally redundant dispatch site is also available, and an agreement for use of an alternate radio system (statewide mutual aid tactical channels) provides at least basic second-system redundancy. The weather resistance of the dispatch center is excellent. ACFR has maintained its older conventional radio system as an additional means of redundancy and to facilitate out of county responses. This study was not intended to be an evaluation of the communications center, but rather an overview and understanding of the communications system and its capabilities as related to the efficiency of the fire and emergency medical systems. Our limited observations led us to the conclusion that the services provided by the Center were professional, efficient, and certainly comparable to similar services provided in other areas, including those provided in much larger cities.
138
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Current Deployment Model The Alachua County fire and emergency medical services response system is a coordinated effort among a number of different jurisdictions. These include the cities within the county as well as Alachua County itself. This section will discuss the emergency response workload within the county, the resources available to manage that workload, and the performance of the system both on a county-wide basis and within various sub-regions.
System-wide Workload Evaluation Fire and rescue units responded to 29,691 incidents during 2003. The following chart illustrates the type of incidents that occurred during this time period. Figure 13: Responses By Type - 2003
Responses by Type - 2003 EMS, 17449
Structure Fire, 752
Other Fire, 1268
EMS Other Other Fire Structure Fire
Other, 10220
Emergency medical service incidents were the most common response at 59% of total. Structure fires were the least frequent at just 3% of total incidents. “Other” responses include such events as downed power lines, hazardous materials emergencies, false alarms, public assistance responses, and the like. Response activity is widely distributed across the county.
As in most jurisdictions,
response workload is greatest in areas of greater population density and mixed socioeconomic conditions.. The following map illustrates incident locations during 2003. 139
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 14: Response Activity By Geography - 2003
#
#
## #
# #
## # #
# ## #
##
#
#
# Y
# # ##### #
###
# #
###
# ## ## # # ### ### # # ############ ## ### # # ###### # # ### # # # ###### #### ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ### # # # # # # ### ###### ## ## ######### ##### ## # ## ## # ### #### # ## # # #
#
#
# ## ### ### #
#
#
#
#
# # # # #
# Y
#
#
#
#
# # #
Z $
#
#
#
# ##
# # #
# Y
# ##### # # #### ## ## ### ## #### #### ######## ### ## ## #### ### # #
#
#
## #
# # # #
#
# #
# #
##
#
## # #### #### #
#
# #
##
# # ### ## # # # ##### # # # ##### ## # ## # # ### # # ## # ## ## # # # # ## # # # # # ##### # ## ### # # ## # ## ## ### ## # # ## ## # # # ## # ####### ### # ######## # # # # #### # # ## #### ## # ######## # # # # # #### # # ####### # # # #### ### ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ######## # # # # ######## ###### ## ## # ### # ## #### ## ### ### ## ### #### ## # ## ### ## # ## ### ## # # ## ###### # # ## #### ## ## ######## ## ### # ## # # # ### ## ####### ## ### ## ######## ### # # ### ## # ## # ### ## ## # # ## ## # # ## #### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ############ ##### ## ##### ### ####### ### ## ### # # #### ### ## #### # # ### # ##### # ## #### # ### # # ####### # ## ## ### # ##### #### #### #### ### ###### ## #### ### # ## ### ## ### ## ########### ##### ### ### ### ########### ## # ### ## ## # ### ##### ### ###### # ## # # # ## #### ### ### ##### ## ##### ## #### # # ## ## ## # ### # ## # # ########## ## ## ## ## # #### ## ## # ### ## # ##### # ### ## ### ## ## #### # #### # ## #### # ## # ######### ## ## ### ## ## ### ### ## ## ### ###### ## # #### ##### # # ### # ##### ####### # # #### #### ## ## #### ## ## ## ## ## ### ## # ##### #### ## ## ## ## ## ########### ### ## #### ## ## ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ### ## ## ## #### #### ########### ### ############# # # ###### ######## ## # #### ####### # ### #### ### ## ### ##### ## #### #### ## ## ##### ## ###### ## ####### ## ##### ## ## ## # ### ## #### ## # # ## ### ### ## ### ## # # #### # #### ## # ## ## ## ## # ## ### # ##### ########### # ## # # # ## # #### # ## ### ## ## ## ## # # # ## ### # ## ###### #### ## ## ## # ### ## #### # ### # # # ## ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ##### ## ######## # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### ## ## ## ## ####### ######### ## #### ## ############ ############ ## ### ## ## ## ## #### ## ## # ## # ## ##### # ##### ## #### ## ### ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ################### ## ## ################ # ####### ### ## ### ## ###### ## ## ## ## ## ######## #### ### # # # ### ### ## ###### ## # ## ## # ### ###### # ## ### ## ### ## ### ## ### # ## ## # # # #### ### ##### ### ######### ## ###### #### ## ## ## # ### ###### # ## ######## ### ### ## ### ## ###### # ##### # # ### # # # ## # ## # #### ### ##### # # ## ## ## # ## ## # # ## # # # ##### # # ######### ## # ##### ## ## ## ### #### ### ## # ## # ## ## ## ###### ## # ####### # # # ### #### # ## # # # # ## #### ######## ######## ## # ## ## ### ######### # # ## # # ## ###### ## ## ## ### ### # #### # ###### # ##### # # ## ## #### ### ##### ### ## ## ## # ### ## # ###### # # ## #### #### #### #### ## ## ## ### # ## #### ## ## ### ##### #### ######### ## # ## # # ### ## ### ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### ## ## ## # # ### # # ## # ## ### ## # # #### ## # #### # ### ### # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ### # # # # # # # # #### ## ### # ##### #### # # ###### ###### # # # ### ## # ## # # # ### ## ## # ## ### # # ####### ######## # ## # # ## # # # # ###### # ### ## # #### # ## # ## # ### ####### #### ## # ### ### ### #### # ## # ####### # # # # ### ## # ## # # ######## # ### ## # #### #### # ## # ##### # ## # ## ## ###### ###### # # ######## # ## ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ###### # # # ## ### ### ### ## # # # ## # # # # # ## ### # ## ## ######## # ### ### # # # # # # # # # # # ## ### # ##### ##### # ### ## # # # ## # ## ## ### ## #### # # ## ## # ## # ## ## # ### ### # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #### # # # # # ### ## # # # # #### ### # # # # # # ## ## ### #### ####### # ## # # # # # ##### #### # # # ## # # # ### # # # ## ###### ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # #
# #
#
Z $
Z $
[ %
[ %
[ %
Z $
[ %
[ %
[ %
#### ###### ## ## # # # #
# Y
#
[ %
#
#
## # ## ## # ## ### # # ### ####### # ## ## #### #### # # #### ## ### ## ## # ### #### # # ## ## # # # ### # # # # ##
Z $
Z $
##
# ## ## ###
# #
# #
# # #
# #
# Y
## # #### ###
#
#
# #
#
##
# # #### ## #
# #
# Y ##
# # #
# # # # ## #
# # ## ## #
# ### # ##
##
##### # # # # ### ## ##
Z $ # #
#### # ### #
##
#
#
#
# Y
# #
## # #
# Y # Y
## ##
# H [ ^
#
##
Z $ #
##### # #
## ## #
#
Incident locations ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations
The greatest concentration of incidents occurs inside the City of Gainesville (14,209 out of 29,691 incidents county-wide). The following map shows incident workload by type. Again, areas of greater population density experience higher levels of incident activity.
140
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 15: Response Activity By Geography and Incident Type - 2003
#
#
##
#
#
##
# # #
# ##
88 88 8 88 88 8 8
# # # # ### #
#### # ### ### ################ ###### ######## ## #### ### #### ###### # ##### # ## # #### ## ### ##### ### # ### # ## # ### # ####### ########### # ## #### # ### ######
#
#
## # # #
# #
#
8 #
8 8# # ##
#
#
# #
#
#
# ### #### ### # #
8 # ##
# #
##
# #
##
###
##
#
#
# #
# #
#
## ##
# #
##
8
88 8 8888 88888 8 8
8 8
#
# #
## #
#
###
#
## # ### ## # # ### #
# # ##
### ##
# ## # ## # ## # # ## # ## # # ## ## ### ## #### ##### #### ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # ### # ##
#
# ### 8 #####
##### #
## # ##
#
88
# # ## # ### #
88 8 88 8
#
# #
8 #
● #
#
#
# #
#
# ##
## # ##### #
# #
#
8
## # # ## #
##
8##
# #
# #
#
# # ##
# # #
# ## # #
#
88 8
## # # # #### # ## # ### # # #
# #
##
# # #
##
#
#
#
##
#
#### # ### ##
# #
# # # #
8
8
## ##### ##
# #
#
8
88
8
# #
#
888
8
#
##
#
8 88 888 8 8 8 8 888888888888 8 8 88888888888 8 8 8 8 8 8 888 888 8 88 8 88 8 88888 888 8888888888 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88 88 888 8 8 8 888 88 888888 8 8 888 8 88 8 8 8 8 88 8 888 8 8 8 888 88 88 888 88 8 8 888 88 8888888888 8 88888 88 888888 888 888888 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 888888888 8 8 8 8 8 88 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88888 8 88888888 8 8 88 8 8 8 8888888888 888888 8 888 88 8 8 88 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 888 88888 8888 8 888888 8 88 8888 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88888 8 888 88 8 88 8 88 8 88 88 8 888 8 8 88 88 8 88 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 888 88 8 8 8 ##
# #
8#### ### # #8 8#
# #
8
##
#
# # ##
# # ##
#
#
#
## ## # # # # ####### ## ### # #
##
#
#
8##
### # ## # # ##### ### ## #### # ####### ####### # # ## ########## # ## #### # # # ## ##### #### ###### ## ### # # ## # ### ### ##### # # ####### ###### # # #### # # # # # # ## # #### #### ### # ### ###### ######## ##### ## # ########## ### # ### ### ### # ##### ##### # # ## # ##### ### # ##### ### ## ## # ## # # ######## # ## # #### # ## ########### ## # # ## ## # ## ## # #### # # ## # #### ##### # ##### #### #### ### #### ## ## ## # #### # ## ### ## # ## ## ## ## #### ## ## # # ## ### ### # # ## ##### ## # # ## ### ### # # #### # ### #### ## # ## ## #### ## ### # # # ## ## ## # ### ### ## ### ## #### ## # #### ## ## #### ### ### ## ############ ### ## ## ###### #### # ####### #### # # # ## ## #### # # ######### ## ## ## ########## ###### #### # # # ########## ### ##### # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # #### # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ##### # ## # # #### ## # ### ###### ########### # ### # # ## ### # ### ## ###### ### ### # # ### # # ###### ### ## ##### #### # # ## ## # ######### # ## # ##### #### ## ## ## ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #### ##### # #### # #### ### ## # ### # ## ###### ###### ### ############# # ###### ## ## #### ### ## # ### ### # ## ### # # ####### ##### # #### ######## # ## ######### # ### ### ## # ## ## ######### ###### ## # ## #### ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #### # # # ## # ####### # ## ### # ### ## ###### ### # # ### ## # # ####### ###### #### # ##### #### # ## # # # #### # ####### ### # #### ### ## ## ########### ### ########## #### ### # # ### ###### ##### # ####### # # ## ### ## ## # ## ## ## ####### # # #### #### ##### #### ##### ## ## ### ####### # ######## ### ###### #### ### ## ## # ### # #### ### # ## ## ## #### #### ## # # ## # ## # # ## # ### # ### #### ## ###### # ## ## # ## ###### ## # #### # ### ### #### ############ ### # ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ########### # ##### # ########### # # ## # ######### # ## ### ## ### #### ####### ########### ## ### ########## ## ## ### ##### # ## ### # ## ### ### # ###### #### ### ## # #### ## ########## # ## # ### #### ## #### # # #### # # # #### ## ## # # # #### ## #### # ### # ## ## ### ## ## ###### ## ## # # # ### # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # ######## # ############### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ####### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # ####### #### #### ## ##### ### # # ### ## ## ## ## ### # # # ## ######## ### # ## ### # ## ## ######## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #### ##### ################ ## ## # ## ## ### ### ## # ## ######## ## ## ## #### ## ## ### ## ## ## ## # ## #### ### ####### ## ## ### # ## ### ## # #### ## # ## ## ###### # ## # # # ##### ###### ########## # ## ## ## ## ##### # ####### ## #### #### ### # #### ## # ## ###### # # ############ ### ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## # # ##### # ## ######## ## # # ### ## ####### ## ##### ## # #### # # ## ########### ###### ### # ### ### ######### # ######## ##### # ## ## ##### ## ##### # ## # ### # # # # #### ## ### ########### #### #### # # ####### # # ## # ## # ##### # ### ### ## ### # #### # ### # # ### ### ## # ####### ######## ### # ####### ## ###### ### ### ##### ### ## ### ## # #### #### ## # ## ### # ### # # # ## ## ##### # ##### # ## ### ### ### ##### ### #### ## # ### # #### #### ## # ### ### ##### ##### ## # ## # # ######## # ## # # ####### ###### ##### ## # # # ###### ## # #### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ####### # ## # #### # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # ### # ### # # # ### ## # # ## # ## ## # # ## ##### ## # ##### # # ## ##### # # ## ## ########### # # # # ####### ##### ## # # #### ##### # ###### # ## ##### # ## # # ### # # ### # # ## #### ## # ### ## ######## ## # ### # ## ### # ### ### # ## # ### #### ## # # ### ## ## ## ############# # ### # ## # ## # ### ## ## # ###### # ## ## ## ### ## ## ### # ## # ### #### # ## # # ## ########## # # #### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #### ###### ## # # ## #### # ##### # # # # #### ## # # ## # # ## ### # # ## # # ## ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # # ## # # ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # ###### # ### # ## ##### # # ## # ## # # # # # # ### ## # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # ## # ## ### # #### ### # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # ## ##### ### # # # # ### # # # # ### ## ###### # ### # # # # # #### # ## # # ##### ### # # # ## ## # #### # # # # ## ##### ## ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #
#
8888 88 8 88
# # # #
#
#
#
# ## ### # ########## ##### # ### #### ## ## #### ### ## ## ## ### ## # ### # ### ##### # # # ##
# # ## ## #
#
# #
#
#
#
#
##
#
# #
#
# #
#
#
# ### ##
#
8
## #
#
#
#
# # # #
##
# ### #
## # #
#
#
Fire incidents EMS incidents Other incidents
Incident activity demonstrated variability by period of time. The following charts shows that response activity varies little by month or weekday, but significantly by time of day.
141
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 16: Workload By Month Of Year - 2003
Incidents by M onth - 2003 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Incidents 2480 2341 2525 2404 2511 2347 2472 2471 2434 2509 2487 2706
Incident activity by month is almost uniformly distributed. Figure 17: Workload By Day Of Week - 2003
Incidents by Day of Week - 2003 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Incidents
Sun
Mon
Tue
W ed
Thu
Fri
Sat
3724
4170
4312
4261
4335
4669
4216
There is some variation by day of week. The difference between the slowest day and busiest day is almost 1,000 incidents. Averaged over the course of a year this amounts to a maximum variation of less than three incidents per day.
142
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 18: Workload By Hour Of Day - 2003
Incidents by Hour of Day - 2003
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
hour 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Calls 813 780 607 534 536 644 988 1314 1506 1584 1656 1748 1734 1791 1703 1712 1622 1581 1391 1280 1296 1096 911
There is substantial variation in incident workload by time of day. The busiest time period for the various fire and emergency services in Alachua County is between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. 52% of all responses occurred during this 8 hour time period.
System-wide Performance and Outcomes The ultimate goal of any emergency service delivery system is to provide sufficient resources (personnel, apparatus, and equipment) to the scene of an emergency in time to take effective action to minimize the impacts of the emergency. This need applies to fires, medical emergencies, and any other emergency situation to which the fire department responds. Before discussing the department’s current performance, it is important to gain an understanding of the dynamics of fire and medical emergencies.
Dynamics of Fire in Buildings Most fires within buildings develop in a predictable fashion, unless influenced by highly flammable material. Ignition, or the beginning of a fire, starts the sequence of events. It may take some minutes or even hours from the time of ignition until flame is visible. This smoldering stage is very dangerous, especially during times when people are sleeping, since large amounts of highly toxic smoke may be generated during early phases.
143
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Once flames do appear, the sequence continues rapidly. Combustible material adjacent to the flame heats and ignites which in turn heats and ignites other adjacent materials if sufficient oxygen is present.
As the objects burn, heated gases accumulate at the
ceiling of the room. Some of the gases are flammable and are highly toxic. The spread of the fire continues quickly. Soon the flammable gases at the ceiling reach ignition temperature. At that point, an event termed “flashover” takes place; the gases ignite, which in turn ignites everything in the room. Once flashover occurs, damage caused by the fire is significant and the environment within the room can no longer support human life. Flashover usually happens about five to eight minutes from the appearance of flame in typically furnished and ventilated buildings.
Since flashover has such a dramatic
influence on the outcome of a fire event, the goal of any fire agency is to apply water to a fire before flashover takes place. Perhaps as important as preventing flashover is the need to control a fire before it does damage to the structural framing of a building. Materials used to construct buildings today are often less fire resistive than the heavy structural skeletons of older frame buildings. Roof trusses and floor joists are commonly made with lighter materials more easily weakened by the effects of fire. “Light weight” roof trusses fail after five to seven minutes of direct flame impingement. Plywood I-beam joists can fail after as little as three minutes of flame contact.
This creates a very dangerous environment for
firefighters. In addition, the contents of buildings today have a much greater potential for heat production than in the past. The widespread use of plastics in furnishings and other building contents rapidly accelerate fire spread and increase the amount of water needed to effectively control a fire.
All of these factors make the need for early
application of water essential to a successful fire outcome. A number of things must happen quickly to make it possible to achieve fire suppression prior to flashover. The following figure illustrates the sequence of events.
144
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan Figure 19: Fire Growth Sequence
Source: Commission on Fire Accreditation, International
The reflex time continuum consists of six steps, beginning with ignition and concluding with the application of (usually) water. The time required for each of the six components varies. The policies and practices of the fire department directly influence four of the steps, but two are only indirectly manageable. The six parts of the continuum are:
1. Detection: The detection of a fire may occur immediately if someone happens to be present or if an automatic system is functioning.
Otherwise, detection may be
delayed, sometimes for a considerable period.
2. Report: Today most fires are reported by telephone to the 9-1-1 center. Call takers must quickly elicit accurate information about the nature and location of the fire from persons who are apt to be excited.
A citizen well trained in how to report
emergencies can reduce the time required for this phase.
145
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
3. Dispatch: The dispatcher must identify the correct fire units, subsequently dispatch them to the emergency, and continue to update information about the emergency while the units respond. This step offers a number of technological opportunities to speed the process including computer aided dispatch and global positioning systems.
4. Turnout: Firefighters must don firefighting equipment, assemble on the response vehicle, and begin travel to the fire. Good training and proper fire station design can minimize the time required for this step.
5. Response: This is potentially the longest phase of the continuum. The distance between the fire station and the location of the emergency influences reflex time the most. The quality and connectivity of streets, traffic, driver training, geography, and environmental conditions are also factors.
6. Set up: Last, once firefighters arrive on the scene of a fire emergency, fire apparatus are positioned, hose lines stretched out, additional equipment assembled, and certain preliminary tasks performed (such as rescue) before entry is made to the structure and water is applied to the fire. As is apparent by this description of the sequence of events, application of water in time to prevent flashover is a serious challenge for any fire department. It is reasonable though, to use the continuum as a tool in designing the emergency response system.
Emergency Medical Event Sequence Cardiac arrest is generally used as the prototypical life threatening medical event. A victim of cardiac arrest has mere minutes in which to receive definitive lifesaving care if there is to be any hope for resuscitation. Recently, the American Heart Association (AHA) issued a new set of cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines designed to streamline emergency procedures for heart attack victims and to increase the likelihood of survival. The AHA guidelines include new goals for the application of cardiac defibrillation to cardiac arrest victims. Heart attack survival chances fall by seven to ten% for every minute between collapse and defibrillation.
Consequently, the AHA now recommends the administration of
cardiac defibrillation within five minutes of cardiac arrest.
146
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
As with fires, the sequence of events that lead to emergency cardiac care can be visually shown, as in the following figure. Figure 20: Cardiac Arrest Event Sequence
Source: American Heart Association
The probability of recovery from cardiac arrest drops quickly as time progresses. The stages of medical response are very similar to the components described for a fire response. Recent research stresses the importance of rapid cardiac defibrillation and administration of certain drugs as a means of improving the opportunity for successful resuscitation and survival. An Oregon fire department recently studied the effect of time on cardiac arrest resuscitation and found that nearly all of their “saves” were within one and one-half miles of a fire station, underscoring the importance of quick response.
People, Tools and Time Time matters a great deal in the achievement of an effective outcome to an emergency event. Time, however, isn’t the only factor. Delivering sufficient numbers of properly trained, appropriately equipped, personnel within the critical time period completes the equation.
147
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
For medical emergencies, this will vary based on the nature of the emergency. Most medical emergencies are not time critical. However, for serious trauma, cardiac arrest, or conditions that may lead to cardiac arrest, response time can be very critical. Equally critical is delivering a sufficient complement of personnel to the scene to perform all concurrent tasks required to deliver quality emergency care. For a cardiac arrest, this can be up to six personnel: two to perform CPR, two to set up and operate advanced medical equipment, one to record the actions taken by emergency care workers, and one to direct and provide advanced patient care. Thus, for a medical emergency the real test of performance is the time it takes to provide the personnel and equipment needed to deal effectively with the patient’s condition, not necessarily the time it takes for the first person to arrive. Fire emergencies are even more resource critical. Again, the true test of performance is the time it takes to deliver sufficient personnel to initiate application of water on the fire. This is the only practical method to reverse the continuing internal temperature increases and ultimately prevent flashover. The arrival of one person with a portable radio does not provide fire intervention capability and should not be counted as “arrival” by the fire department. Industry standards and OSHA regulations require that at least four personnel must be on scene to conduct interior firefighting operations.
Thus, the initial arrival of effective
resources should be marked as the point in time when at least four personnel, properly trained and equipped, have assembled at the fire. Effective operations at the scene of fire emergencies also depend on the arrival of sufficient trained personnel to perform all of the duties and tasks required to control a fire event. Tasks that must be performed can be broken down into two key components, life safety and fire flow. Life safety tasks are based on the number of building occupants, their location, status, and ability to take self-preservation action. Life safety tasks involve the search, rescue, and evacuation of victims.
The fire flow component involves
delivering sufficient quantities of water to extinguish the fire, and creating an environment within the building that allows entry by firefighters.
148
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The number and types of tasks needing simultaneous action will dictate the minimum number of firefighters required to combat different types of fires. In the absence of adequate personnel to perform concurrent action, the command officer must prioritize the tasks, completing some in chronological order rather than at the same time, reducing overall fire emergency effectiveness. These tasks include: command fire attack ventilation
scene safety water supply back-up
search and rescue pump operation
The following chart illustrates the fire ground staffing recommendations of the Commission on Fire Accreditation, International. The following definitions apply to the chart: Low Risk – Fires involving small sheds and other outbuildings, larger vehicles and similar. Characterized by sustained attack fire flows typically less than 250 gallons per minute. Moderate Risk – Fires involving single-family dwellings and equivalently sized commercial office properties. Sustained attack fire flows range between 250 gallons per minute to 1,000 gallons per minute. High Risk – Fires involving larger commercial properties with sustained attack fire flows between 1,000 gallons per minute and 2,500 gallons per minute Maximum Risk – Fires in buildings with unusual hazards such as high-rise buildings, hazardous materials facilities, very large buildings, and high life risk properties (nursing homes, hospitals, etc.). Though they may not require large sustained attack fire flows they do require more personnel to perform tasks required for effective control.
149
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 22: Minimum Firefighting Personnel Needed Based Upon Level of Risk
Maximum Task Attack Line Search and Rescue Ventilation Back-Up Line/Rapid Intervention Pump Operator Water Supply Utilities Support Command/Safety Forcible Entry Salvage Overhaul Communication Operations Section Chief Logistics Planning Staging Rehabilitation Division/Group Supervisors High Rise Evacuation Stairwell Support Totals:
Risk 4 4 4 8 1 1 1 2 * * * 1* 1 1 1* 1* 1 2* 10* 10* 53
Moderate High Risk 4 2 2 6 1 1 1 2
Risk 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 2
Low Risk 2
19
15
6
2 1
1#
# Can often be handled by the first due officer. •
At maximum and high-risk fires, additional personnel may be needed.
Performance Criteria The County of Alachua10 has defined desired response performance (dispatch to arrival) based on three geographic classifications.
These classifications and the target
performance for the first arriving response unit are:
10
•
Class I (Urban)
Arrival within four minutes for 80% of all responses
•
Class II (Suburban)
Arrival within six minutes for 80% of all responses
•
Class III (Rural)
Arrival within 15 minutes for 80% of all responses
Alachua County Community Development Plan Policy 1.2.5
150
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The following map shows actual response time performance measured at the 80th percentile11 within each of the 17 districts12 that make up the Alachua County fire and EMS system. Figure 21: Response Time Performance By Geography - 2003
#
#
# ##
#
# # #
## ###
# # # # ### #
#### # ### ### ######## ###### ##### ## ## ## ### ### ### ### #### ## ## ## ### ## ## # ## ## ## ### ### ## # # # ### ## # ## ## # ## ### # ## ### # ## ### ### ########### ## # ## ### # # #### ####
# Y
# # # # #
## # # # #
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
# # ##
#
#
#
#
# #
### #### ### # #
# ##
#
## #
# #
##
# #
##
#
###
##
# Y
### ## # #
#
## ## # # # #### ## ### # ## ## # ##
## ##
##
#
#
# #
#
# #
# # ## ## # ##
##
#
# #
# #
#
# #
# ##
###
#
# # ##
7 min
[ %
7 min
Z $
8 min
9 min
7 min
7 min
#####
##
##### #
## # ##
#
#
##
#
# #
## # ### # ## # # ### #
Z $
# Y
#
### ##
# # ####
# # #
#
# #
# #
#
#
#
##
# #
# Y
#
12 min
9 min
#
# # ##
#
# ## ### # ##### ##### ###### # # ## # ### ## ### ## # #### # ## # # ## # ### # #### ## ## ##### # # # ## ##
Z $
# # # #
## #
# # ## # # ### # ## # ## # ### ## # ## # ### ##### ######## ### ## ### # ####### ### #### ### # # # ## # # # # # # # # ####### # # # # ###### ### ## ### #### ## # ### ## # ## ###### ### # # ## # ## #### ### #### ### # # # ##### # # # ### ## ## # ## # # ## #### # ##### ##### ## ### # #### ### ######## ## ## ######### ## ## # ## # ### #### ### ##### # # # # # ### ##### # # # #### ### # # # ## # ##### ## ## #### ### ####### ######### # # # ## # # ## ## # # ##### ##### ## # #### ### ## # ## # ## ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #### ### ### # ## ### ######### ######## #### ### ##### ## # #### #### # ## ### ### # # #### # ## # ## ## # ## ###### ### # # # ######### ## ### ## ########### #### # ## ## # # ### ## ######### # ### #### #### ## ### ## ## ## ## ## ### ## ## #### # # ### #### # ###### ####### ########## ######## #### # ## ## ## # # ## ####### ### ## # # ##### ###### ### #### ###### # ### # ####### ####### ##### ##### ###### # ##### # ## ### ## # # ## ##### # # # # ## ## ## ### ##### ### # #### # # ## ### ## ##### ## ### ## ## ####### # ############ # ## ### ### #### # ## ###### # # ## ### ## ## # ### # ## # # #### # # # ## ## # ############## ## ## ## #### ## ## # # # ### # # # ## ### # # # # ###### # # ## ### ## # #### ## ## ###### ## ### ##### ######### ## ### #### # ## # # ### ### # # ######### ## ## # ##### # # ## ## ### ######### ### ######## ## ## ## # ## ######### ###### # ######## # ### ### #### ### ### # # ###### ##### # # # ## # # ## ### ####### # # # # ## # # # #### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # #### # #### #### #### # # ## ## ## ## # ##### ### ## #### ##### ### #### ## ## ### ## ### ## ### # ##### ### #### #### ## ## #### #### # ### ##### ### ## # ### # # # ## ## # # ## # ### ##### # ## ### # ##### ### ## # ### ####### ## ### # ## # #### ### ##### ## ##### ## ## #### #### # #### ## ## ## # ##### ### ## ## ## ###### ### ##### #### # ## #### ### ## # ## # # ## # # ##### ## ## ## # # ### # ## ## # # ## #### # ####### ### ## ## ### ######## ### # # ### ## ## # # # ## ### ### ### ######### ## ### ## ## ## # ### # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ############### ####### ###### ### #### # ########### #### ## # ###### ## # ### ###### ## ###### #### ## ##### # ### # ### # ## ## ## # ### # ## ## ## # ### ## ## # ## ## ## # # ###### # ## # ## ### ### # ## ## ## ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ############# # ###### ### #### # ### # ### ######## # # ## # ## # ## # # ######### ### ## ### ### ## ### ############## ### #### # # # ### # ## ## ##### # ## #### ### ## ## # ## ### ### ## ## # ## ## ###### # ### # ## ## ## ### ## # ## ## #### ### # #### ### ### # ### # # ### ## # ## ### # ## ################ ## # ## ### #### # # ## # # # # # # # # ## ## # ### ### # # # ### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ########## # ## #### ## # ####### ## ####### ########## ### ### # # ### ## # # ##### # ## ##### # ###### ## ## #### ### ### ## # ## ## ###### # # ### ## ## # ### ##### ## ## # ### ## ## ## ##### ##### ####### ### ####### ## # # # # ### ### #### # # #### ######### #### ########## # ####### ### # #### ## # ## # ## ### ### ### # # # # #### #### # ## ##### ##### ##### ### # ## ### # ## ###### ### ## ### ## ###### ## # ## ## ### ## ## ## # # ## ## ## # ## ### ### ### ##### # ## #### ## # # ### ### ### # # ### ## ##### ## ### ## # ## ### ### #### #### # ## ## #### ## # #### # ###### # #### # # ## ##### # # ####### ## # # ## ## ## ## # ## ## # ## # ## #### # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ####### # # # ## #### # # ## # ## # ### # # ##### # ## # # # # ##### ## # # # ### ### # # # ## # # ## # # # # ##### ## # #### ## ### # ###### ## # ##### ###### ## #### # # # # # #### ### # # ## # # # # ## # # #### ##### # #### # ##### # # ## ### ### ## #### ## # ## ### ### ### # ### # ## ### ### ## # ## #### # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## # #### ## # # ### ## ######## ### ## ## # # ## # ## # # ## #### ## ######## ## ## ## ### # ## # # ##### # ###### # ## # # # # ## ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ##### # # ######## # # # # ## # ## ### # # # #### ## ######## # # # #### ## # ## # ### # ## # # # # # # # # # # # #### # # # # ####### # # # ## ## # # ##### # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### ###### ## # ### # ### # ### # # # ## # # # ### ## # # # ## # ##### # # # # ## # # ## # ## # # ### ### # ## ### # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # ### # # # # # ### # # ## ## ##### # # ## ## # # ### # # # # # ## ## ###### # #### # # #### # #### # # ### # ### # # # ## ## # #### # # # # ## ##### ## ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
## #
#
# # ## ## # #
#
#
#
#
#
### ##
##
#
#
##
### # #
#
#
6 min
#
#
#
#
# ## # #
#
#
##
[ %
Z $
#
[ %
#
#
#
#
#
##### #
# #
##
Z $
# #
#
## # # ## #
##
7# min # ##
# #
# # ##
# ## # #
# #
# #
## # # # #### # ## # ## # # #
Z $
# #
# 9 min #
8 min
Z $
#
# #
# Y
7 min
9 min
# Y
### ### # ##
11 min #
#
# # #
[ %
Z $
#
#
[ %
[ %
[ %
#
#
13 min
##
#
#
# Y
#
##
#
#### # ### ##
# #
# Y
7 min
##
7 min
# Y
# # # #
# H [ ^
Other incidents ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations
11
Incidents for 2003 used for analysis.
12
For purposes of this map, Gainesville’s response area is treated as a single study area.
#
151
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
In all districts response performance meets the rural standard. Only one district meets the suburban standard. The urban standard is not met in any of the districts. The next map shows the districts and their actual performance overlaid on a map with the future urban, suburban, and rural land areas projected.
These areas were
developed based on the land use plans within the county as described earlier. Figure 22: Response Time Performance Comparison To Service Class
# Y # Y
12 min
6 min
Z $
# Y
9 min
7 min
[ %
Z $
# Y
Z $
[ %
7 min
[ %
[ %
[ %
Z $ 7 min
7 min
7 min
Z $ 9 min
# Y
[ %
Z $
9 min
11 min
[ %
8 min
# Y 7 min
Z $
Z $
8 min
9 min 13 min
# Y # Y
7 min
# Y
H [ ^
Urban area Suburban area Rural area ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations
152
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The level of performance desired for the urban and suburban areas in not currently being achieved. Defined response performance (15 minutes, 80% of the time) is achieved in all rural areas.
System-wide Service Gaps In order to achieve desired response time performance there must be a response unit available to respond within a reasonable distance of an occurring incident. Assuming units are staffed, and crews initiate response within 60 seconds of notification the following travel distances are reasonable. Urban area Suburban area Rural area
1.5 miles 2.5 miles 7.5 miles
The following map shows service area coverage from existing stations for the travel distances defined above, calculated using an average travel speed of 30mph. The first map shows coverage from each fire station at the urban (1.5 mile), suburban (2.5 mile) and rural (7.5 mile) standard. It should be noted that Gainesville Fire Station #6 is included in this display. Though it currently serves as an airport firefighting and crashrescue facility only, it has a capability for future structural fire company response off-site and, thus, is included in the analysis.
153
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 23: Response Time Capability Of Current Fire Deployment
# Y # Y
Z $
# Y
# Y
[ %
Z $
# Y
[ % [ %
Z $ Z $
[ % [ %
[ %
[ %
Z $
# Y
Z $
Z $
Z $ # Y # Y # Y
Urban area Suburban area Rural area Roads within 1.5 miles of a fire station Roads within 2.5 miles of a fire station H [ ^
Roads within 7.5 miles of a fire station ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations
The next map shows the same coverage parameters as they would apply to an emergency medical response. Rescue stations are included.
154
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 24: Response Time Capability Of Current EMS Deployment
# Y # Y
\ &
Z $
# Y
\ &
[ %
Z $ \ &
# Y
# Y
\ &
[ % [ %
\ & Z $ \ & Z $
\ & \ % [ &
[ % [ %
[ %
Z $
# Y
\ &
\ & Z $
\ & Z $
Z $ # Y # Y # Y
H [ ^ \
Urban area Suburban area Rural area Roads within 1.5 miles of a EMS station Roads within 2.5 miles of a EMS station Roads within 7.5 miles of a EMS station ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations Rescue stations
Based on this analysis, it’s clear that the rural standard is well met in all parts of the county. The suburban standard is met in only small portions of those areas designated as suburban. The urban standard is also met in only small portions of those areas designated as urban. This is indicative that additional deployment of facilities and/or companies will be necessary to achieve the desired performance levels.
155
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
System-wide Service Redundancy Prior to looking at adding fire stations and response units to improve response performance it is important to review areas where overlapping service area coverage exists. It should be noted that Gainesville Fire Station #6 is included in this display. Though it currently serves as an airport firefighting and crash-rescue facility only, it is included in the analysis in order to determine if its structural response capability, if initiated, would create system redundancy. In this case system redundancy exists only in portions of the urban area within the City of Gainesville. The following map illustrates this for fire response. Figure 25: Fire Service Overlap In Current Deployment
[ % [ %
[ % GFD STA 3
Z $ GFD STA 1
[ %
Z $
[ % [ %
[ %
Z $
Z $
H [
Urban area Suburban area Rural area Area within 1.5 miles of a fire station ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations
156
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The service coverage of Stations 1 and 3 overlap each other significantly. Otherwise little redundancy exists. The following map illustrates redundancy for EMS responses by including the coverage provided by rescue stations. Figure 26: EMS Overlap In Current Deployment
\ & [ % [ % Rescue 1
[ % GFD STA 3
\ Z $ & GFD STA 1
[ %
Z $ \ &
\ &
\ & [ % [ %
[ %
Z $
\ &
\ & Z $
H [
Urban area Suburban area Rural area Area within 1.5 miles of a fire and rescue station ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations
The location of the ACFR Rescue 1 facility has a coverage area that overlaps three Gainesville fire stations. The separate facility contributes little to initial unit arrival response time performance over that which could be achieved from the GFR stations.
157
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The question this raises is whether this unit needs to be housed in a separate facility or can be co-located in an existing facility in the interest of cost efficiency.
Current Standards Compliance Our review of the various agencies providing fire and emergency medical service in the county included a general assessment of the levels of compliance currently being achieved with regard to various national and state laws and standards.
ISO The Insurance Services Office, better known as ISO, maintains the Community Fire Protection Rating list to which insurance companies typically refer when setting rates for fire insurance. The concept behind the rating system is simple: the better prepared a community is to defend against fire, the better the outcome in terms of loss for the insurance companies. While the concept is simple, its application is complicated and has become increasingly controversial, primarily because the rating system itself has remained virtually unchanged since 1980 while fire protection technology and procedure have undergone dramatic change. Regardless of any associated controversy, the rating system continues to be the foundation of most fire insurance premium rate structures. This means that communities or fire districts with lower ratings (on a scale from 1 to 10) will achieve more advantageous insurance rates than those with higher ratings. The ISO Community Fire Protection Rating System does not simply rate fire departments. This is a common misconception. The system rates three basic components of a fire protection system:
• • •
Receiving and Handling Fire Alarms Fire Department Water Supply
During an ISO rating inspection field visit, each component is rated separately, though ultimate scores include a divergence factor if, for instance, a fire department’s capability is completely mismatched by its available water supply system or vice versa.
158
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Throughout this study, we had opportunities to observe and question various practices within the agencies related to the four major areas in which the fire departments have greatest control over the scoring of their organization during a rating inspection: apparatus, staffing, training, and pre-fire planning. We include general observations in this section. It should be noted that this study was not intended to be, nor should the results be considered as, a full ISO pre-inspection evaluation. Apparatus and Equipment The criteria for rating points awarded to the engines, ladder and service trucks, as well as the equipment carried on them, is an accumulation of various components. Aside from the distribution of these apparatus, which is usually dictated by the existing fire station locations, the individual fire department can have a positive affect on the scoring. The department needs to ensure that the total pumping capacity available meets the established level, known as the Needed Fire Flow (NFF), as established by ISO for that agency’s district. Our observations were that most departments we visited likely met and exceeded this capacity. We would, however, recommend that those agencies operating only a single pumper take actions to verify their Needed Fire Flow to determine whether the single pumper is adequate. This information can be obtained by written request from the Insurance Services Office. It should also be noted that rating points are issued for apparatus deployment methods that match ISO’s preferences. Generally, ISO likes to see developed areas of a community be within 1.5 miles of an engine and 2.5 miles of a ladder company (where one is required). For departments operating from single stations, the available rating points rarely justify the cost of additional facilities in the absence of other factors influencing such decisions. For those departments with multiple stations, deployment schemes we observed generally distributed the engines and ladder companies to best advantage, though not likely fulfilling the ISO preferences to perfection, since certain areas of both ACFR and GFR districts are outside of 1.5 miles from an engine. This report will provide future deployment schemes that should, in many cases, improve this status when implemented in the future. However, we note that most communities, even those with low ratings,
159
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
often have some remaining pockets of developed area that fall outside the ISO distribution criteria. This is typically a balance of cost versus rating benefit. An additional area of achievable ISO points related to apparatus involves the equipment carried on the apparatus itself. The apparatus reviewed in this study, for the most part, carried a typical complement of fire fighting equipment as recommended by NFPA, ISO, and industry best practices. However, certain notations were made in our individual apparatus reviews where the equipment appeared to fall short of the ISO recommendations. Best practice for any department is to review the ISO equipment inventory recommendations to ensure each rated piece of equipment qualifies for full rating points, particularly when an ISO rating inspection is imminent. Finally, ISO requires pumping apparatus and all fire hose to be tested on a regular basis in accordance with their testing specifications. This is an area where significant loss of rating points can be suffered in the absence of such tests. Our observations in this regard were mixed. GFR and ACFR appear to perform routine and scheduled pump and hose testing, while many of the smaller agencies either did not perform full tests or could not confirm the status of the pump and hose testing programs. This should be corrected in the short-term as an extended history of test performance will be required during an ISO rating inspection. Credit for Company Personnel ISO provides point credit based on a department’s ability to demonstrate the level of staffing it can routinely provide on structure fire incidents. Again, our review of staffing levels ended in mixed results. GFR is able to provide a solid and reliable complement of firefighters based on use of predictable full-time staffing methodology. The other agencies, including ACFR, rely heavily on volunteers or companies with less than full staffing levels. GFR’s use of full-time staffing permits ISO to use the “On-Duty Strength” (OM) method of calculating the rating points for Credit for Company Personnel (CCP) credit for this agency. While the current on-duty strength of GFR may not qualify for the maximum credit in the CCP rating (ESCi estimates this at 10 out of 12 points), it is likely to fall near that maximum if their automatic aid agreements with ACFR are credited by ISO as onduty strength.
160
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
ACFR and the smaller agencies continue to rely on volunteers for at least a part of their staffing. While ACFR staffs its apparatus, it continues to utilize volunteer agencies in many of its automatic aid alarm assignments. These personnel are credited through the Volunteer Member (VM) method of calculation. This uses the average number of volunteers responding with the initial alarm assignment (usually over a six to twelve month period preceding the inspection visit), then divides this number by three. It is easy to see that this method of staffing results in much lower credit points for company personnel, even if the performance contract with the County requires a minimum number of volunteers on the apparatus before it responds. Training Training is one area where departments can gain significant point credit in the ISO rating. To do so, however, takes commitment, discipline, and accurate records. While the career personnel in most of the agencies are provided with relatively consistent and documented training, it still falls short of the amount of training necessary to achieve greatest point credit. In the volunteer agencies, the amount of training available falls significantly short of the ISO desired levels and, in several of these departments, a requirement for members to attend any particular minimum number of training hours was either non-existent of poorly enforced. For best credit, ISO desires the following amount of training attendance per member:
• • • • • •
All firefighters, company-level station training Officers Driver/Operators New Driver/Operators Recruit Training Radioactivity Training
240 hours annually 12 hours annually 12 hours annually 40 hours initially 240 hours initially 3 hours annually
In addition, ISO desires the annual firefighter training to include the use of the department’s training facilities (which can include open lots, parking areas, etc.) to include:
• • •
Eight half-day drill annually Four half-day drills annually that include multiple companies or agencies Two three-hour drills that occur at night
161
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
It should also be remembered that all such training described above must be thoroughly documented to be accepted by ISO. Several of the smaller agencies visited in this study had extremely poor training records and had conducted no annual summaries or analysis of attendance. Pre-Fire Planning ISO will award additional training points for departments that conduct regular pre-fire planning inspections of commercial, industrial, institutional and other similar type buildings up to a frequency of twice per year. Credit only occurs if proper records of these inspections are kept, with updated notes and sketches. Cross Creek VFD and High Springs FD reported that they conduct no formal pre-fire planning efforts. LaCrosse, Melrose, Micanopy, Newberry, Waldo, Windsor, Alachua County and Gainesville conducted the pre-fire inspections and included appropriate documentation, but several reported that their plans were out of date. Each agency should strive to develop formal pre-fire planning programs that increase the frequency of such inspections with proper documentation to achieve increased point credit during future ISO inspection visits. Pre-fire inspection credit need not be limited to full-company field visits to business occupancies. While this is an excellent and typical means of creating an initial pre-fire plan, larger career departments should initiate a means of coordinating both pre-fire plans and code enforcement inspection programs such that credit for a pre-fire plan inspection update can be obtained during subsequent code enforcement inspections by having the inspector briefly review and update the plan.
OSHA/EPA The State of Florida is not among those states operating their own authorized “State Plan” under federal OSHA. Those states that operate such state plans are required by federal law to extend OSHA regulations to state and local government service providers. States that elect not to operate a “State Plan” remain under the direct jurisdiction of federal OSHA, which does not extend to state and local government service providers. This would initially lead one to believe that various provision of OSHA regulations pertaining to fire departments and, more specifically, to firefighter safety would not apply in the State of Florida. However, this is not the case.
162
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Florida State Statute 633.821 specifically provides Florida’s Division of the State Fire Marshal with the authority to “adopt rules for the purpose of ensuring safe working conditions for all firefighter employees…” More specifically, the statute goes on the authorize adoption of all or any parts of various OSHA rules, NFPA standards and ANSI standards. Statute 833.820 specifies that volunteer fire departments are included in this and other similar provisions. In response, the Division of the State Fire Marshal promulgated Administrative Rule 69A-62.001 in which the Division “adopts and incorporates as rules of the Division of State Fire Marshal… Sections 1910.120, 1910.134 [excluding Section 1910.134(g)(3) and 1910.134(g)(4)], 1910.146, and 1910.156” of the federal OSHA regulations. A subsequent section of the same chapter adopts the excluded sections of 1910.134(g) with several clarifications as to applicability. Thus, we reviewed the status of the agencies in this study with particular respect to compliance with Section 1910.134, involving their respiratory protection programs, and 1910.120, involving their hazardous materials response programs. Section 1910.134 requires a formal Respiratory Protection Program for agencies utilizing respiratory devices in hazardous atmospheres (including interior structure fires). The Respiratory Protection Program must include medical evaluations (including a pulmonary function test), respiratory device facepiece fit testing, thoroughly documented respiratory device inspections, and detailed respiratory device use policies. These use policies must include provisions as to the conditions under which the devices must be used and the provision that those operating in hazardous atmospheres must operate in teams with a minimum of two personnel, backed up by the availability of an additional team of two personnel with respiratory protection (commonly known as the “two-in, twoout rule”). While both Alachua County Fire Rescue and Gainesville Fire Rescue have welldocumented and written Respiratory Protection Programs, the smaller agencies either did not have such programs in place or had not adequately documented them. Medical evaluations and fit testing programs are in place and enforced regularly in both ACFR and GFR, but none of the other agencies reported full compliance. Respiratory device inspections and documentation are conducted by both ACFR and GFR and are required as part of the Alachua County contract with the remaining agencies.
163
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
In review of the compliance with Section 1910.120, the most significant finding was the lack of personnel trained to the “Operations” level specified by the OSHA rules. While all specialists and technicians involved in the special hazardous materials response programs in both GFR and ACFR were properly certified at their respective levels, many remaining firefighters receive training only to the “Awareness” level. Of primary concern here is that each agency should have firm procedures in place to limit any personnel from performing tasks and functions that would be considered above their level of training and certification at incidents involving hazardous materials release. Personnel not trained beyond the Awareness level should not be permitted to respond to hazardous materials incident dispatches, but rather should be directed to remain in an off-site support mode. The Awareness level of training is intended to enable an individual to “…discover a hazardous substance release and… initiate an emergency response sequence by notifying the proper authorities”, but nothing else13. Obviously, once an incident has been reported, such as a fuel leak from a vehicle called in to 9-1-1, the incident has already been recognized and moved beyond the Awareness level. The act of dispatching a fire engine presumes action on the part of the responding crew involving size-up, containment, decontamination or clean-up. Any of these tasks would exceed the training level certified under Awareness and are actions specifically described in the “First Responder Operations Level”14. Written procedures should prohibit response by personnel certified by their department at less than Operations level to any incident with a known, suspected, or likely release of a hazardous substance, including fuels and gases.
NFPA While there are literally dozens of national standards set by the National Fire Protection Association that contain elements that could apply to the operation of public fire departments, our review centered primarily on the standards involving the design and equipping or motorized fire apparatus (NFPA 1901), the standards involving firefighter
13
OSHA CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(i)
14
OSHA CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(ii)
164
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
training (NFPA 1001), and the standards involving firefighter safety and health (NFPA 1500), and the two standards involving the overall organization and operation of a fire department (NFPA 1710 and 1720). It should be clearly understood that, with the exception of NFPA 1500 (which was adopted by reference as an Administrative Rule of the Division of State Fire Marshal), each of these publications represent only a nationally recognized standard and are not enforceable as law. However, this status does not preclude their use in civil litigation involving fire departments. During this study, a review was made of all major apparatus that was in front-line service at the time ESCi conducted its field visits. For all practical purposes, we found all apparatus to generally meet the requirements of NFPA 1901 at the time of its construction. Most of the apparatus carried the full complement of equipment required by the standard, with any discrepancies noted in the individual reviews found earlier in this report. While certain apparatus would not meet the current standards as published by NFPA, retroactive application of the specifications is not a requirement of the standard. We do note that each department should review any firefighting apparatus, particularly wildland fire apparatus, that was constructed entirely or in part by the members of the organization to ensure that it meets the requirements of NFPA standards at the time it was placed in service. Regular testing of pumps, hose, aerial devices, and ground ladders is also required by various NFPA standards and, as mentioned earlier, can affect ISO rating point credit. As already mentioned, several departments were in full compliance with these testing standards while others have failed to implement appropriate testing programs in full compliance with the standards. The firefighter certification program in the State of Florida contains requirements that make it compliant with NFPA 1001’s specifications for Firefighter I and II. This is mandatory for any person employed as a firefighter in the state. However, the current requirements for the Basic Volunteer certificate are not fully compliant with the NFPA standards for firefighter training.
165
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The action of adopting, by reference, NFPA 1500 “Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program” would make it an enforceable rule that each fire department establish such a program in compliance with the requirements of the standard. This would include an active Health and Safety Committee and the appointment of a Fire Department Safety Officer, among other things. In our review, only ACFR and GFR had programs that we would deem fully compliant with this standard. The departments in this study utilizing primarily career personnel (paid, on-duty staffing) would be expected to meet the requirements of NFPA 1710 “Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments”. Our review placed ACFR, GFR, Newberry, Micanopy and Waldo into this category, since they rely on paid firefighters for their primary response staffing under virtually all conditions. The primary benchmarks of NFPA 1710, for purposes of this study, can be summarized in the following list: •
Ability to assemble personnel in companies of at least four persons
•
Ability to assemble full first-alarm assignment of at least 14 personnel (13 if aerial not utilized)
•
Arrival of first-due company on structure fire incidents in 4:00 or less, 90% of the time, or
•
Arrival of full first-alarm capability on structure fire incidents in 8:00 or less, 90% of the time
•
Arrival of ALS capability on EMS incidents in 8:00 or less, 90% of the time
This summary is not intended to downplay other important sections and practices in the standard, but rather to focus on the issues most pertinent to this report. In our review of the performance of the four agencies identified, none of the four is currently in full compliance with one or more of the benchmarks of the standard. The reasons vary by department, but typically involve deployment of less than four personnel as a company on single-unit fire responses or arrival times in excess of the 90th percentile requirement. The standard requires a full analysis and report of these deficiencies, along with recommendations for correction, to the agency’s governing body at specified intervals. 166
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The requirements of NFPA 1720 “Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments” are much less stringent with regard to arrival time benchmarks. However, the standard does require that the department “identify minimum staffing requirements to ensure that a sufficient number of members are available to operate safely and efficiently”. The current performance requirement for the smaller agencies in their contract with Alachua County requires only a minimum of two firefighters on board apparatus prior to departing for an incident. In several cases, departments reported having no system to ensure that additional personnel were responding or available. While the dispatch protocols in use provide multiple apparatus for structural fire responses, certain fire incidents, such as vehicle fires, are dispatched as singlecompany responses. The single apparatus is only required to have two firefighters on the response. Two firefighters is an insufficient number of personnel with which to safely conduct virtually any kind of fire suppression or rescue action, with the possible exception of emergency medical first response. Thus, it appears the agencies with a two-person minimum response staffing policy could not achieve compliance with this section of the standard.
FLORIDA Before closing this section of laws and standards compliance, we felt it important to mention additional issues involving state laws and regulations not already mentioned earlier. The compliance issues involving standards adopted by reference in Florida have already been discussed. However, changes have been proposed to Administrative Rule 69-A62 of the Division of the Fire Marshal that could have a profound effect on those agencies utilizing volunteers. This primarily involves training standards. The Division determined that the current standards for training of volunteer firefighters did not adequately meet one of the most basic tenants of OSHA safety regulations, the requirement for “training commensurate with duty”. In simplest terms, virtually all OSHA standards involving training require that an employer ensure that adequate training has been received by each employee for all tasks to which the employee is assigned or permitted to function prior to the employee undertaking that task.
167
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Past practice in the state has focused much of a volunteer’s training on the assumption of “on-the job” training, that is training that is received after a firefighter has been appointed and given basic introductory training. The new proposed rule will establish that volunteer firefighters must have training meeting the requirements of the Florida Firefighter I course (compliant with NFPA 1001) prior to being permitted to involved in structural firefighting in the “exclusionary” or “hot” zone (the area involving imminent danger and threat conditions). While the proposed rule has not yet been promulgated into law and its final version is not ascertainable, it does appear that the rule will be passed and its final form will involve various methods by which a department can verify its volunteer personnel meet the standards. Regardless of the methods that are ultimately defined, it can be assumed that each of the departments in this study that utilize volunteers will need to be prepared to significantly expand their volunteer training programs, individual training records, training reporting, and be prepared to take action to comply with the requirements of the new rule.
168
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Section II- System Demand Projections Population Projections / Demographics During the 2000 U.S. Census, Alachua County had a total population of 217,955. The Census Bureau estimated this population to have grown to 222,254 by the end of 2002, an average annual growth of about 1%. Several interesting points of demographic data for the County are provided in the following table, derived from the 2000 Census. Table 23: Alachua County Demographic Data, Population and Housing
Population
Age 75
47,380
10,869
10,049
67,418
29,003
26,681
15,394
Housing Information Housing Units Vacant Rental 95,113 7,604 39,424
The distribution of the population can be examined using the individual census tracts from the 2000 U.S. Census. The following figure demonstrates the relative population density of the County, shown in increasing shades of red. Figure 27: Alachua County Population Density- 2000 U.S. Census
Darker shading indicates areas of higher population density
169
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Between 1990 and 2000, the population of the County grew by 20.02%, an average of about 2% annually. This was nearly even with the 19.99% growth seen during the previous decade, but not nearly as significant as the 43% average growth per decade seen from 1960 to 1980. The following figure displays the historic population growth of Alachua County. Figure 28: Alachua County Population History
Alachua County Population History 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
As can be seen from the figure, the County added an average of 35,970 citizens during each decade, with the greatest addition between 1970 and 1980. Moderate growth in this population is expected to continue. A statistical population forecast, based solely on the census history, reveals that the County would expect a population of 306,369 in the year 2024, an average annual growth rate of 1.7%.
170
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 29: Census-based Population Forecast Model
Census-based Population Forecast 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0
2008
County Population 248034
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
255326
262617
269909
277201
284493
291785
299077
306369
While the population projections forecast through a historical analysis of the previous census data may be statistically sound, they often fail to take into account various local issues related to the rate of development in a community. These can include such issues as
“build
out”
in
current
development,
inadequate
infrastructure,
changing
demographics, or a slowdown in the economy. These types of growth impacts are often best evaluated by local agencies. Thus, our study also considered the population forecasts being conducted by local growth management and planning agencies as having great value in forecasting population and service demand growth. Recent population estimates submitted for purposes of analyzing demand on transportation infrastructure by the planning agencies from the various governmental units of Alachua County to the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council reveal an anticipation of slightly lower growth rates for the next two decades. These figures, while preliminary in nature15, show a total population projection of 290,679 in the year 2025, or an average annual growth rate of about 1.4% annually. While the population
15
Population projections by TAZ are preliminary and have not yet been finalized by the North
Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
171
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
projection was performed only for the twenty-year target, the following chart depicts this growth were it to occur evenly over the course of the twenty year projection period. Figure 30: Population Forecast By Land Development
Population Forecast by Land Use and Development 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
County Population 236666 243872 251078 258284 265490 272696 279902 287108 294314
These projections, geographically conducted by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), are also useful in analyzing more specifically where the most significant growth is anticipated, an important factor in fire service deployment models. The following figure demonstrates the geographical areas of the county in which the highest rates of population change are anticipated. This should not be confused with population density, as it merely shows those areas where the population growth, as a ratio of current population, shows the greatest upward deviation. Current locations of fire and EMS facilities are also shown.
172
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 31: Population Increase by Traffic Analysis Zone, 2004-2025
# Y # Y
\ &
Z $
# Y
\ &
[ %
Z \ &$
# Y
# Y
\ &
[ % [ %
Z \ &$ \ &$ Z
\ & \ [ % &
[ % [ %
[ %
Z $
# Y
\ &
Z \ &$
\ &$ Z
Z $ # Y # Y # Y
No to slight growth expected Moderate growth (+2 standard deviation) Significant growth (+3 and greater standard deviation)
As indicated above, the average annual growth rate of the county over the course of this twenty year planning study is projected to be 1.7% by historical census forecast and 1.4% by local planning and development forecasts. Additional statewide population forecasting has been done by the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) and the Florida State Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR). The BERB projects an average annual increase of 1.2% over the period from 2005 through 2023. The EDR projects an average annual increase of 1.5% over the period from 2005 through 2015.
173
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The projected annual growth rates of both state-level studies, along with the local planning and development rate used in this study, are provided in the following table. Table 24: Annual Population Growth Rate Projection Summary
YEAR
OEDR
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
BEBR 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
Local TAZ Planning 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
Service Demand Projections Demand for fire and rescue services typically change at rates equivalent to change in population. Population is the most significant influence on response workload. Certainly 100% of all emergency medical incidents are related to people.
The National Fire
Protection Association reports that approximately 74% of all fires are the direct result of human behavior.
Discussion earlier in this report illustrated the affect of higher
population density on incident workload. During the past four years, demand on fire department services has averaged 119.25 incidents per 1,000 population. The rates in each of the four years are shown in the following table.
174
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 25: Historical Workload Rates 2000-2003
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003
Total Incidents 27,112 26,409 24,578 26,625
Rate per 1,000 Population 124.4 120.6 111.7 120.4
If the average rate of usage holds steady in the upcoming years total incidents expected in the year 2025 will be 35,529.
Incident workload increases will generally follow
population increases, thus areas expecting greater population growth will also see corresponding incident workload growth. Modeling change in incident workload is not simply a matter of applying changes in population. A number of areas in the county currently experience higher than typical incident workloads even though population in those areas is very small. Generally this is due to transportation and recreation activity that generates the need for emergency response. Since it is unknown how future years may influence non-resident incident activity graphically portraying predicted changes in incident workload would not be accurate. Alachua County fire and emergency service agencies are best advised to plan resource deployment based on two factors. The first is the expected growth in population. There are areas of the central county that will experience more intense population growth, not just in terms of percentage of growth, but in total numbers of people within a given area. The second is on community fire protection risk. Urban areas will have the highest population densities.
In addition, urban areas contain larger buildings and greater
industrial hazards, which contribute to the need for greater numbers of personnel and apparatus needed to adequately suppress fire. Suburban areas will develop with less density and less fire risk. Rural areas, according to forecasts, will change little over time. There was no information available for this report that could predict when and where incident workload growth within the county would occur. This will depend mostly on when and where population growth occurs.
175
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Community Risk Analysis Fire Protection Risk Factors While there are many considerations that can be assessed when evaluating a community’s fire protection risks, the issues can be narrowed into two major categories. How likely is it that a fire will occur within a given area and how bad will the fire be if it does occur? The geographic community risk analysis involves the answers to both of these questions. The first phase of the fire protection risk analysis involves statistical analysis of the risk of fire occurrence. The second involves an analysis of the consequences, or community impact, of a fire if it does occur. The risk of fire occurrence can be attributed to various factors, some physical and some cultural. For instance, the physical proximity of a structure to highly combustible vegetation increases the risk of the structure being involved in fire as a result of a nearby wildland fire incident. This factor, commonly called urban-wildland interface, is why insurance costs in parts of the western U.S. are sometimes higher for such structures in comparison with other similar structures. It’s a good example of a physical factor contributing to the risk of fire occurrence. Cultural or demographic issues can play just as significant a role as physical issues. It has long been documented that the rate of structure fires per capita is highest in the southeastern United States. Not surprisingly, it can also be seen that the acceptance and use of newer, more aggressive fire and building codes was slower to develop in this same geographical area. Likewise, a higher rate of fire incidents per population is typically observed where the density of population in a given geographic area increases. Densely populated urban settings, areas with less owner-occupancy, and communities with economic blight often trend toward higher fire incident rates. In a community with stable growth, this likelihood of fire occurrence is reasonably tracked through an analysis of fire incident experience. In the absence of significant physical or cultural change, such as major factory closings or civil unrest, the analysis of fire experience yields a fair insight into the likelihood that a fire will occur within a given time period and within a given area. This fire incident experience analysis is provided, both statistically and graphically, in other areas of this report.
176
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
How much impact a fire is likely to have on a community if it does occur is a factor involving more prediction than experience. For instance, a fire in a vacant garage has little overall impact on the economic welfare of a community while a fire in the primary facility of a city’s major employer can be devastating. Even if an analysis of fire experience shows both are equally likely to occur, one fire carries far more dire consequences that the other. A complete community fire protection risk analysis must involve some process of identifying the areas within the community where a fire will have greatest negative impact.
Consequence Factors The consequence evaluation in our community fire risk analysis takes into account several major factors in an effort to geographically identify those areas of the community where fire is likely to have greatest impact. During our community evaluation, these consequence factors are assessed and utilized in placing structures into risk categories that carry numerical weight in the overall risk analysis formula. ¾ Life Risk: Structures within a given community that present a significant risk for large loss of life are assessed a higher risk score, despite what may appear to be a smaller size. As an example, even a relatively small apartment structure with multiple families will assess as a higher risk than a comparatively large single-family dwelling. Hotels or high-rise occupancies will assess as higher risks than a commercial or light industrial occupancy. Structures used to house or assemble high-risk populations, such as elderly or disabled persons, will also assess at high risk. In general, the consequences of fire incidents in such structures can be a significant loss of life and is weighted accordingly in the risk analysis. ¾ Economic Impact: Even though the destruction of a particular property may not result in any loss of life, the impact on a community can be devastating if it has a strong effect on the economy. Loss of employment, decreased taxable value, reduction or losses of associated service industry are all examples of the negative economic impact that fire can have on a community. However, economic impact of a fire depends on the type, use, and size of the structure involved. Even total destruction of a single-family dwelling will have little overall impact on a community’s economy, no matter how large the house. Likewise, loss of a single commercial entity, such 177
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
as a restaurant or auto repair shop, may have an economic impact that is both temporary and limited to the local neighborhood. Loss of significant industrial facility or manufacturer, however, can cripple an entire community’s economy for months or even years. The predictable economic impact, therefore, is also considered when placing structures into risk categories in the analysis.
¾ Resource Demand: The outcome of a fire incident in comparison with the resources available is somewhat predictable. For instance, a study by the National Fire Protection Association on residential structure fires from 1994 to 1998 indicated that fatalities and dollar loss were over 85% lower in those incidents where the fire was contained to the room of origin. Doing so requires the proper number of firefighters and resources to arrive on the incident quickly enough to effectively deploy and contain the fire in its early stages. An ineffective number of resources or a later arrival would permit the fire to spread beyond the room of origin with predictable results. For this reason, we evaluate the approximate number of firefighters and engine companies necessary to rapidly and effectively contain a fire within given structures. The structures are generally categorized within the medium, high, or maximum range for needed resources in accordance with the resource table utilized in the International Fire Service Accreditation Congress (IFSAC) model. The quantity and density of each category within given geographical areas (in this case using zoning classes) are utilized within the overall risk formula.
Methodology Our geographic community risk analysis begins with a basic review of the land use classifications for the area studied. Land use or zoning classifications are utilized because they are an existing regulated classification that typically involves the type, use, size, and density of structures within a given geographical boundary. As indicated earlier, these factors weigh heavily in the evaluation of both the likelihood of fire occurrence and the anticipated impact of a fire incident. By utilizing the land use classes, we take advantage of existing classifications that have already occurred and involve these factors.
178
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Each community, however, differs slightly in the specifications for structure size, use, and density from zoning class to zoning class. Therefore, we conduct a basic review of each land use classification in existence for purposes of establishing a standard riskdensity factor that is based on true counts of structures within each zoning class. This process is conducted by actually driving through, street-by-street, representative areas of the various land use classes and conducting a “windshield assessment” of structure type, use, and risk category. These physical counts are translated into the community risk assessment using mathematical formulas and geographic information systems software (GIS). A mathematical formula is utilized that considers the number and density of structures as categorized by potential community impact, consequence factors, and resource demand. In the next step, geographic information systems (GIS) software is used to determine the precise size of the sample areas evaluated. The total risk score of each area is divided by the size of the sample area in acres to arrive at the risk density factor. In most cases, several sample areas of each zoning class are used and then averaged to increase dependability of the results. This risk density factor can be used for comparison purposes when evaluating the overall fire risk within the community by each land use class. A graphical representation of this risk analysis can then be derived from the numerical risk factor. The figure below shows each land use classification within the map area by shading that corresponds to the relative fire risk/impact in comparison with the overall community. Areas are shaded in progressive depths of red color to indicate relative fire risk/impact.
179
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 32: Community Fire Impact Risk Assessment Map
Darker shading indicates areas of higher fire risk
As stated earlier, the geographic representation of relative community fire risk/impact is useful as one element in staff and resource deployment planning.
Future Service Delivery Zones The current system of defining desired response performance by rural, suburban, and urban classifications is sound, though the definition of these classifications makes their use in future planning challenging. It is strongly recommended that the definitions not include scale of development for the purpose of resource deployment planning. Those will certainly be valuable aspects to determining when to add resources, but not to where they should be located.
180
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The various land use plans anticipate a level of population and development that will ultimately occur.
These are the best sources of information to use to plan for the
deployment of resources. They are the community’s plans for how population and risk will be distributed in the future. Since they are the existing land use designations, most any area of the county could, at any time, develop accordingly. The fire and rescue agencies will need to anticipate this level of development and plan accordingly. The following map defines the future urban, suburban, and rural zones within the county for the purpose of resource deployment planning. It should be noted that Gainesville Station #6 is shown on this map, but does not currently provide services beyond aircraft crash rescue. Figure 33: Future Service Delivery Class Planning Zones
# Y # Y
\ &
Z $
# Y
\ &
[ %
Z \ &$
# Y
# Y
\ &
[ % [ %
Z \ &$ \ &$ Z
\ & \ [ % &
[ % [ %
[ %
Z $
# Y
\ &
Z \ &$
\ &$ Z
Z $ # Y # Y # Y
Key
Area Designation Urban area Suburban area Rural area
Response Time Performance Objective 4 minutes or less, 80% of the time 6 minutes or less, 80% of the time 15 minutes or less, 80% of the time
H [ ^ \
ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations Rescue stations
181
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Section III- Future Delivery System Models The Alachua County fire and emergency services system will need to change if desired levels of performance, as expressed in its service delivery objectives, are to be achieved. Current performance meets targets only in rural areas. This section of the report seeks to provide the basic deployment of fire and emergency medical service infrastructure necessary to achieve the community’s desired level of performance over the course of a twenty-year time period. As will be seen, the county has requested that we develop three levels of performance for their consideration. Thus it becomes necessary to offer three resource deployment models. It is important to understand the philosophy under which these deployment models are provided, particularly those models expected to maintain or improve levels of service. The methods used by ESCi to create these deployment models are based on analysis of data, established performance objectives16, and computer-driven modeling. The effort here is to provide a view of the “best possible” scenario for decision-makers to consider over this twenty-year time period. The reader should keep in mind two primary points when examining the deployment models offered here. First, remember that the philosophy of ESCi is to provide the “best possible” scenario. In considering this fact, it is necessary to remember that our deployment modeling may recommend facilities in locations where factors other than service performance present significant challenges as to the practicality of implementing the recommendation. These factors can include such things as:
16
•
Property acquisition costs
•
Property availability
•
Long-term viability of existing facilities
•
Future land use designations
•
Historically or culturally sensitive property locations
It should be noted that the service level performance objectives used throughout this study are
taken from the three-class system (rural, suburban, and urban) adopted by the Alachua County Board of Commissioners and do not necessarily reflect a universal set of performance objectives used or adopted by each agency or community involved in this study.
182
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Along with our recommendations for “best possible” deployment, these other factors must also be considered by decision-makers every time an individual component of this infrastructure master plan is considered. For example, a five-million dollar price tag for property in a location identified in the deployment model is certainly adequate justification for some modification of this deployment plan. These decisions will need to be made on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. Moving a station a couple of blocks from the “best possible” deployment model in order to save a historic structure, avoid a long legal battle over acquisition, or reduce costs of construction are reasonable considerations that local communities have had to make time and time again. This can be particularly true of station relocations. There is little doubt that each of the current facilities in the service delivery system was located to best advantage at the time of construction, with an anticipation that it would serve adequately for many years to come. When relocations of facilities are proposed, it is not to suggest that the station was located improperly at the time of construction. Rather, we offer the ideal future deployment model based on growth and development patterns as they have been provided to us today. This leads us to discussion of the second major point to consider when evaluating these deployment models. The best-case models are provided as twenty-year deployment strategies and are certainly not intended for immediate implementation in their entirety. Again, this is an important consideration as it relates to station relocations. The existing facilities may, in some cases, serve the system for many years to come before anticipated growth and development, along with completion of additional facilities, create the need for the relocation. However, it is also possible that opportunities will present themselves that would permit the community to consider the relocation in the most fiscally prudent manner. This might involve, for instance, an offer to purchase an existing site by a business that desires the location. Were this report not to identify the potential in such relocations, an offer of this sort might be dismissed outright. Likewise, if future maintenance and upkeep costs for an aging facility brought the agency to a point of considering significant renovation, the knowledge that relocation is a desirable option may sway the outcome of that decision.
183
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
We recommend that these deployment models be considered in the manner in which they are offered: strategies that provide the best-possible modeled performance based on existing knowledge of growth and development. They are, indeed, points on a map that provide the highest levels of service performance in accordance with the stated objectives. Their implementation, however, will require consideration of additional factors that may, in some cases, require minor revision in the best interest of the community. In keeping with these philosophies and the in conjunction with the County’s original project specifications, jurisdictional boundaries were not considered a factor in the deployment models provided. Emergency response systems operated by different agencies work best when operated under “closest force” agreements.
Jurisdictional
boundaries rarely provide borders that line up well with fire station response boundaries. Thus, there is nearly always response capacity available through cooperative sharing of overlapping jurisdictional coverage. Deployment alternatives offered in this section will assume that, at a minimum, closest force agreements will be in place.
Future Deployment Recommendations Three deployment options were requested as an outcome of this study. They include: • Maintain current levels of service – Current levels of service are to be
maintained into the future.
Level of service is defined by the time required to
deliver the initial arriving unit with its available staffing complement. • Reduce level of service – Identify methods by which current levels of service can
be reduced for the sake of cost efficiency with limited impact on emergency event outcomes. • Improve level of service – Define facilities, apparatus, and personnel resources
needed to achieve target levels of performance as previously described.
Facilities- Maintain Current Levels of Service Maintaining current levels of service with predicted population growth will necessitate the addition of some resources in higher growth areas. Additional population will create additional workload, which has a negative effect on response performance.
184
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
As population grows, there will be areas not now served that will generate increase response activity. More incidents that occur outside the coverage of existing units will mean longer overall response time performance. Additional stations will be needed, over the long-term to ensure response performance does not decline. The following map shows recommended fire station additions needed to maintain the level of service within the suburban and urban areas in order to maintain level of service. Figure 34: Recommended Facility Additions To Maintain Current Service Levels
Z $
US Hwy 441 & Turkey Creek Blvd
Z $
34th St NW & 30th Pl NW
[ % [ %
24th Ave SW & 100th St SW
[ %
[ %
Z $ [ %
Z $
[ %
Z $
Z $
[ % [ %
Z $
Z $
H [ ^ H [
ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations New ACFR stations New Gainseville station
Urban area Suburban area Rural area
Two additional stations will be needed in the suburban area over the long-term. One located at 24th Ave SW and 100th St SW, and the other at U.S. Highway 441 and Turkey Creek Blvd. A station will also be needed in the urban area at 34th St NW and 30th Pl NW.
185
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Facilities- Reduced level of service ESCi is not typically asked to develop deployment strategies that reduce levels of service from their current performance. In those cases where such a request is made, it is typically in response to a significant economic crisis within a community. In a community where growth is not occurring or a major industry has departed along with a large sector of the job market, we sometimes find a sufficient decrease in population and service demand to justify a reduction in service delivery resources. Likewise, if deteriorating economic conditions suggest that a community can no longer afford current government services, difficult decisions such as diminished fire and police protection become necessary. Though such conditions were not seen in the Alachua County area, ESCi was asked to identify deployment strategies that would result in a level of service delivery that is lower than the level currently experienced by the citizens. In the situations where diminished levels of service are necessary, as in the circumstance described in the previous paragraph, any service redundancy or overlap is the first consideration for elimination. Though a particular station may be providing services considered normal, or even valuable, by those within its service area, if those resources can be shown to be redundant they would be considered for reduction. After this consideration, reduced services are targeted to those resources providing the least impact on overall service demand. The unit and station coverage of Alachua County does not include significant overlapping service areas.
There are small coverage overlaps within the City of
Gainesville; however, there is also significant workload within those areas suggesting the need for multiple resources. No fire or rescue stations can be closed outside of the central county area. Closure of any of the outer stations would create significant and unreasonable travel times to emergencies from remaining stations substantially degrading level of service. Given the lack of significant redundancy or overlap in facilities and resources, it is necessary to consider reduction in services by reducing those facilities considered basic and necessary for current service delivery. ESCi believes this is inadvisable in the absence of critical economic conditions within the city and/or county. Based on the limited feedback received in our customer input sessions, it is also highly unlikely that the citizens would readily endorse a plan to diminish public safety services from their current levels. 186
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
As an alternative to closing existing resources, which our analysis indicates would generate an immediate degradation of service performance, the County could simply consider a “no further service growth” option. In other words, since the community is experiencing growth and development at a rate of between one and two percent annually, the county could cap its public safety service delivery infrastructure at current levels and allow the growth to merely overtake existing services. In effect, a decision to do no further development of these services will, over time, decrease the levels of service currently being experienced. While the result will not be an immediate decrease in the cost of these services, it would mean an overall decrease in the cost in relation to property value and population protected over the course of several years of sustained community growth. As an example, a near static cost for service delivery that would result from a cap in public safety staffing and infrastructure is projected to result in a decrease of approximately 8% in the cost per capita of fire protection over the course of five years of 1.7% community growth. Make no mistake, however; there will be a diminished level of service in the long haul. Eventually, resources will be stretched thin and calls for service may have to be queued for response during busy time periods. Individuals moving into developing areas of the community would not be able to expect service delivery within the response time or at the staffing levels currently experienced.
Facilities- Improved level of service If the identified response time performance objectives are to be realized, additional fire stations, apparatus, and personnel will be needed.
The following map shows the
proposed locations of fire stations along with the coverage provided by each, based on whether the station is located to serve the urban area or the suburban area. There are several new stations and several relocated stations in this deployment option.
187
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 35: Deployment For Optimum Service Level Performance- Overview
# Y # Y
Z $
# Y
Z $ [ %
Z $ [ %
Z $ Z $
# Y
[ % [ %
[ %
[ % [ %
[ %
Z $
# Y [ %
Z $
# Y
Z $ Z $
Z $
Z $ # Y # Y # Y
H [ ^
ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations 1.5 mile service area coverage
Urban area Suburban area Rural area 2 mile service area coverage
188
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Figure 36: Deployment For Optimum Service Level Performance- Urban/Suburban View
Z $
Z $
[ %
Z $
[ % [ %
[ %
Z $ [ %
Z $
[ %
[ % [ % [ %
Z $
Z $
Z $
Z $
H [ ^
ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations 1.5 mile service area coverage
Urban area Suburban area Rural area 2 mile service area coverage
The following tables list the future fire station locations for both the City of Gainesville and for Alachua County Fire Rescue as they are shown on the map above.
189
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 26: GFR Facility Deployment Modification Table
Station Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 (reloc) Station 4 (reloc) Station 5 (reloc) Station 6 Station 7 (reloc) New Station A New Station B
Current Location 427 S Main St 2210 SW Archer Rd 900 NE Waldo Rd 10 SW 36th St 1244 NW 30th Ave 3681 NE 47th Ave 5601 NW 43rd St N/A N/A
Proposed Location 427 S. Main St. 2210 SW Archer Rd 1400 NE Waldo Rd 4400 Newberry Rd 39th Blvd NE and N Main St 3681 NE 47th Ave 39th Ave NW and 34 St NW 16th Ave NW and 22nd St NW 6400 13th St NW
Table 27: ACFR Facility Deployment Modification Table
Station Station 12 Station 15 Station 16 (reloc) Station 17 Station 19 (reloc) Station 21 Station 25 Station 27 New Station C New Station D New Station E
Current Location 1320 SE 43rd St 7000 SW 88th ST 1600 Ft Clarke Blvd 401 NW 143rd St 2000 SW 43rd St 15040 NW Hwy 441 7405 SE 221st St 429 W State Rd 24 N/A N/A N/A
Proposed Location 1320 SE 43rd St 7000 SW 88th ST 23rd Ave NW and 83rd St NW 401 NW 143rd St SW 45th and Archer 15040 NW Hwy 441 7405 SE 221st St 429 W State Rd 24 U.S. Highway 441 and Turkey Creek Blvd 24th Ave SW and 100th St SW 63rd Blvd NW and 71st St NW
This distribution provides coverage of current and projected responses that should achieve the defined performance objectives.
Coverage will improve as more
development occurs and road networks are created in areas currently without roadways. It should also be noted that this deployment plan includes the addition of off-site response services from GFR Station #6, currently assigned as an aircraft fire and rescue facility for on-site airport response only. While the facility is capable of housing and providing off-site service, an additional engine company will need to be assigned to this facility in order to initiate this service.
190
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
With the recommendation for six station relocations, we also reiterate our earlier discussion about the philosophy behind the deployment models. They are provided as “best-possible” strategies and should not be considered as efforts to find fault with existing deployment. As stated, the deployment model offered here is a twenty-year plan and the existing facilities may continue to play an important role as the model slowly transitions from plan to reality. Redeployment of rescue units is also recommended as part of the improved service level option. The following map illustrates the proposed rescue locations. In a number of cases, rescues have been co-located in fire stations, a move that will create additional efficiencies. Figure 37: Recommended EMS Deployment Plan
# Y # Y
] ' Z $
# Y
Z $ [ %
Z '$ ]
] '
[ %
Z '$ ]
Z '$ ]
# Y
[ %
Z $
[ % [ '% ]
[ ]% ' [ ]% '
# Y
] '
[ %
[ %
Z $
# Y
Z $
Z '$ ]
Z '$ ]
Z $ # Y # Y # Y
K
Urban area Suburban area Rural area Rescue location
191
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The following table lists each rescue and the recommended address of its quarters. Table 28: EMS Units Facility Deployment Modification Table
Station Rescue 1 (reloc)
Current Location 1031 NW 6th St
Rescue 2 (reloc)
3600 SW 23rd St
Rescue 3 (reloc)
800 NE Waldo Rd
Rescue 8 Rescue 9 Rescue 15 Rescue 16 (reloc)
5715 NE US Hwy 301 5901 NW 34th St 7000 SW 88th St 1600 Ft Clarke Blvd
Rescue 17 Rescue 19 (reloc)
401 NW 143rd St 2000 SW 43rd St
Rescue 20 Rescue 25
16935 NW Us Hwy 441 7405 SE 221st St
Proposed Location 16th Ave NW and 22nd Ave NWGFR New Station A 2210 SW Archer GFR Station 2 1400 NE Waldo Rd GFR Relocated Station 3 5715 NE US Hwy 301 5901 NW 34th St 7000 SW 88th St 23rd Ave NW and 83rd St NW ACFR Relocated Station 16 401 NW 143rd St 63rd Blvd NW and 71st St NW ACFR New Station E 16935 NW Us Hwy 441 7405 SE 221st St
As a final consideration for space and facilities, it is anticipated that additional administrative and support space would be needed as the fire and EMS system expands, particularly in the two largest agencies, ACFR and GFR. We project that each agency will need to add a minimum of 7,500 square feet of support space, including expanded classroom space for training and additional staff offices. We do not attempt to project whether this would be accomplished through expansion of existing facilities or by building completely new administrative and support space and, thus, the cost projections found later in this report include only estimated construction costs associated with these needs and do not include land acquisition. Projections of needed administrative and support space do not include any specialized training grounds, drill towers, simulation facilities, or burn buildings. In summary, this facility master plan calls for:
• • • •
The addition of five new fire stations The relocation of six existing fire stations Vacating two existing stand-alone rescue stations Addition of administrative and training support space
192
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Apparatus Each new fire station will be equipped with a new engine company. As mentioned earlier, we also recommend the addition of structural engine company at GFR Station #6. This apparatus deployment is necessary to achieve the fire suppression first-due response performance benchmarks identified earlier. Aerial apparatus (tower, ladder, or quint) deployment is based on ISO recommendations of 2.5 mile travel distance for areas requiring ladder service. Our model anticipates ladder service being required for all urban class areas within the system. Currently, three ladder service units are deployed in the City of Gainesville and response distance modeling indicates that this number would be sufficient for deployment in the future urban service class areas.
However, changes in the deployment locations will be
necessary. The following map indicates proposed relocation of ladder service companies that provides better distribution of these resources in the future urban service area. Table 29: Recommended Deployment Modifications For GFR Ladder Service Z $
GFD STA 7
[ %
Z $ [ % [ %
[ %
GFD STA 3
Z $ [ %
[ %
[ % [ %
Z $
[ %
Z $ Z $
GFD STA 2
Z $ H [ ^
ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations 2.5 mile ladder truck service area
Urban area Suburban area Rural area
193
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Additionally, some suburban areas may also ultimately meet the criteria for requiring ladder service, but when this will occur cannot be predicted.
We recommend the
continuation of ladder service at ACFR Station 16, and relocation of that unit only if ladder service criteria are met in geographic areas that would necessitate relocation. Elsewhere in this report, the issue of current rescue workload id discussed.
It is
identified that several current rescues exceed reasonable workload (0.30 unit hour utilization). This, along with expected new workload due to population increases, will necessitate additional rescue resources.
Our workload analysis for EMS incidents
indicates that four additional rescue units can be anticipated over the life of this twentyyear master plan. Selecting the final base locations for new rescue units is not practical at this time: that is entirely dependent on when and where new development occurs, and how that translates to new service demand. The fire agencies should plan sufficient space for the addition of a rescue at any fire station constructed or remodeled in the future. Based on current rescue locations, however, the agencies should consider the following locations as likely places for additional resources: Table 30: Additional Rescue Deployment Recommendations
Station New Rescue A New Rescue B New Rescue C New Rescue D
Proposed Location Gainesville Fire Station 6 (3681 NE 47th Ave) ACFR New Station D (24th Ave SW and 100th St SW ACFR New Station C (U.S. Highway 441 and Turkey Creek Blvd) To be determined by future UHU workload
In summary, This apparatus master plan calls for the addition of: • Six new engine companies • Four new rescue companies
194
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Staffing It is a well known fact that no fire was ever put out by a fire truck. It takes an adequate and well-trained staff of emergency service responders to put the apparatus and equipment to its best use in mitigating an emergency incident. Insufficient staffing at the emergency scene decreases the effectiveness of the response and increases the risk of injury to those at the scene. Critical Tasking The first step in the development of a formal standard of cover for any fire department is the completion of a thorough critical task analysis. Critical tasks are those activities that must be conducted in a timely manner by firefighters at emergency incidents in order to control the situation, stop loss, and to perform necessary tasks required for a medical emergency. Each individual fire department is responsible for assuring that responding companies are capable of performing all of the described tasks in a prompt, efficient and safe manner. FIRES - Critical tasking for fire operations is the minimum number of personnel and tasks needed to effectively control a fire in the listed risk category. Major fires (beyond first alarm) will require additional personnel and apparatus. EMERGENCY MEDICAL – Critical tasking for emergency medical incidents is the minimum number of personnel and tasks needed to support the identified strategy based on the department’s adopted medical protocol. While written critical task analysis was not provided by any of the agencies involved in this study, the unit assignments currently in use by the communications center suggest that critical task analysis has, to at least some degree, been accomplished. The following are examples of critical task analysis for typical incident types, as conducted by urban and suburban fire department, and which appear to be the general foundation of the standard of cover used by Alachua County’s fire departments.
195
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan Table 31: Critical Tasking Analysis
Residential structure fire Task Command/Safety Pump Operations Attack Line Search and Rescue Ventilation RIT Total
Number of Personnel 2 1 4 2 2 4 15
Commercial structure fire Task Command/Safety Pump Operations Attack Line x2 Search and Rescue x2 Ventilation RIT Other Total
Number of Personnel 2 1 4 4 3 4 2 20
High life hazard structure fire Task Command/Safety Pump Operations Attack Line x2 Search and Rescue x2 Ventilation RIT Other Total
Number of Personnel 2 1 4 4 3 4 2 20
Grass/brush fire Task Command/Safety Pump Operations/Supply Attack Total
Number of Personnel 1 1 5 7
Vehicle fire Task Command/Safety (with other functions) Pump Operations Attack Line Total
Number of Personnel 1 1 1 3
196
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Emergency medical incident (dependent on EMD screening) Task Patient Care Scene Control/Supply Documentation Total
Number of Personnel 3 1 1 5
Vehicle accident with entrapment Task Command/Scene Management Patient Care Extrication Fire Protection Total
Number of Personnel 1 2 4 2 9
Alarm Assignments In order to ensure sufficient personnel and apparatus are dispatched to an emergency event the following first alarm response assignments have been established. “Total Staffing Needed” is the number identified in the Critical Tasking analysis above. Table 32: System Standard Of Cover Review
Residential structure fire Unit Type Engine Truck Rescue Squad District Chief Total Staffing Provided Total Staffing Needed
Number of Units 2 1 1 1 1
Total Personnel 6 3/4 2 2 1 14/15 15
Number of Units 3 2 1 1 1
Total Personnel 9 6/8 2 2 1 20/22 20
Commercial structure fire Unit Type Engine Truck Rescue Squad District Chief Total Staffing Provided Total Staffing Needed
197
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
High life hazard structure fire Unit Type Engine Truck Rescue Squad District Chief Total Staffing Provided Total Staffing Needed
Number of Units 3 2 1 1 1
Total Personnel 9 6/8 2 2 1 20/22 20
Number of Units 1 1 1
Total Personnel 3 2 2 7 7
Number of Units 1
Total Personnel 3 3 3
Grass/brush fire Unit Type Engine Brush Truck Forestry Unit Total Staffing Provided Total Staffing Needed
Vehicle fire Unit Type Engine Total Staffing Provided Total Staffing Needed
Emergency medical incident (dependent on EMD screening) Unit Type Engine Rescue Total Staffing Provided Total Staffing Needed
Number of Units 1 1
Total Personnel 3 2 5 5
Vehicle accident with injuries (GFR adds on truck company) Unit Type Engine Truck Rescue Squad District Chief Total Staffing Provided Total Staffing Needed
Number of Units 1 0 1 1 1
Total Personnel 3 0 2 2 1 8 9
In order to meet the standards of cover as listed in the table above, each department must ensure the capability to respond the staffing indicated for the apparatus. The standard personnel assignments in ACFR include three personnel on engines, three personnel on truck companies, two on rescues, and two on the squad. GFR has the same staffing assignments, with the exception of four personnel on truck companies. Smaller municipal departments, including those operated by ACFR, often respond with less personnel initially, but with anticipation of additional response by volunteers or reserves. 198
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The discussion and analysis above should serve to indicate the important of providing adequate staffing as deployment of additional companies occurs in the future. In particular, where these companies are deployed in urban or suburban settings, we fully anticipate the need for full-time career staffing of these companies. As workload increases, any effort to cross-staff primary response apparatus will only result in a failure to meet the standard of cover for personnel when multiple company incidents are dispatched. The following table indicates the anticipated minimum staffing deployment that will be necessary on a daily basis to fully meet the standard of cover for the urban and suburban service areas when the facilities and apparatus deployment recommended in this master plan are completed.
199
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 33: Future Operations Duty Staff Deployment Model
Gainesville
Apparatus
GFD New A
E, R
1
1
1
GFD New B
E
1
1
1
GFD STA 1
E, S
1
2
2
GFD STA 2
E, L, HM, R
2
2
3
1
1
GFD STA 3
E, L, R
2
2
3
1
1
GFD STA 4
E
1
1
1
GFD STA 5
E ARFF x2, R, E L
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
12
13
15
4
4
GFD STA 6 GFD STA 7
DC
Lieut
District Commanders
2
Subtotal
2
Alachua County
Apparatus
DC
Lieut
D/Op
D/Op
FF
Atndt/FF
FF
Driver
1
Atndt/FF
Atndt 1
Driver
Atndt
ACFR New C
E, R
1
1
1
1
1
ACFR New D
E, R
1
1
1
1
1
ACFR New E
E, R
1
1
1
1
1
ACFR Station 8
R
ACFR Station 9
R
ACFR Station 12
E
1
1
1
ACFR Station 15
E, R
1
1
1
1
1
ACFR Station 16
L, S, R
1
2
2
1
1
ACFR Station 17
E, R
1
1
1
1
1
ACFR Station 19
E
1
1
1
ACFR Station 20
R
1
1
1
1
1
ACFR Station 21
E
1
1
ACFR Station 25
E, R
1
1
ACFR Station 27
E
1
1
Unassigned
R
VFD Assignments
0
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
2 (days)
District Commanders
2
Subtotal
2
11
12.67
11
7
11
4
Totals Basic Staffing Deployment Daily
4
23
25.67
26
11
15
4
108.67
The table of staffing recommendations assumes the continued use of existing staffing methods and patterns in the rural areas and small communities. This will, however, require continued dedication and commitment on the part of those agencies to maintain adequate numbers of properly trained and certified volunteer or reserve firefighters.
200
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Consistent monitoring of the adequacy of on-call responders should be conducted so that analysis will indicate if standards of cover are not being met. It should not be assumed that administrative and support staffing is overlooked in our master planning efforts. However, it is more difficult to identify the precise needs in the same manner as with operational staff, allowing for specification of job classes to be added. Thus, we make no attempt to provide a precise table of administrative and staff positions that would be anticipated over the course of the twenty years. Instead, our cost projections for this master plan anticipate that the agencies will add positions at a rate sufficient to maintain efficient operations. In calculating this, we use the current agency ratios of administrative/support positions to operational positions. The cost projections indicated in the organizational strategies of this report therefore consider the addition of up to fifteen administrative and support positions.
Growth Sensitivity Analysis The master plan elements of facilities, apparatus, and staffing reviewed in the previous section of this report were based on the projected growth in population, as well as the projected future land use from the County’s comprehensive plan. Thus, it should be evident that if this growth does not occur as projected, the ultimate need for new facilities, apparatus, and staffing would be lower than expected. Population alone has the greatest impact on EMS workload, since 100% of all EMS incidents are related to the activity or condition of human population. Thus, it is possible to perform a relatively accurate analysis of the sensitivity of population growth rates on the projected need for EMS resources. Based on our mathematical forecasts of workload and unit hour utilization, the following table identifies the variation from the current projected rate of growth and its relative impact on EMS resource needs.
201
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 34: Rescue Additions Population Growth Sensitivity Analysis Plan Period Total Population Growth 35% 33% 25% 15%
Sustained Annual Population Growth Rate 1.25% 1.20% 0.90% 0.60%
New Rescue Units During Twenty-year Plan Period 4 3 2 1
For purposes of implementation of this table’s information, users could apply the following formula: (Current population X 0.1069) / 2160 = needed rescue units In the formula, 0.1069 equals the four-year average of EMS incident rates per capita and 2,160 represents the average number of EMS incidents per rescue unit that would permit the system to remain below a 0.30 Unit Hour Utilization. While population plays a part in the deployment of fire stations and fire apparatus, along with its associated staffing, it is not the single factor. Changes in community risk, areas of higher population density, and type of development and construction were all factors in the deployment recommendations for fire suppression forces given in this report. Thus, while it can be assumed that decreases in population growth will have similar effects on fire suppression deployment as with EMS resources, the analysis cannot be as precisely tied to population growth rates and any effort to do so would be a basic estimate, at best. It should also be remembered that the system is not currently meeting its stated performance objectives in fire suppression response, so portions of the recommended growth in fire suppression resource deployment is targeted at meeting and maintaining those levels in the current, as well as future, developed areas.
202
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Projecting Future System Costs The ESCi future system cost analysis uses the current appropriations and pay levels of the agencies to produce a model budget to reasonably reflect budgetary changes relating to the recommended deployment and organizational model. This methodology permits a comparison of the “what if” of a recommended deployment plan against the baseline of current spending. Comparative modeling is considered more accurate than forecasting because the taxation and expenditure policies of units of government are continuously subjected to changes in politics and law.
The outcome of the budget
process of each governmental agency is contingent on numerous human actions that are extremely hard to predict. Therefore, the further out a budgetary forecast attempts to anticipate taxation, the less accurate the outcome will be because of human action. Financial analysis is a particularly important part of the evaluation of options involving unification of one or more agencies. To this end, we develop a computer-driven model budget for each of the fire departments. The model budget begins with a review of a three to five year budget history of each agency and is designed to fairly represent monetary policies on an equal basis, to neutralize the normal differences usually found in unilateral fiscal practices, and to account for any financial anomalies (such as budgetary back loading). The technique assures that an “apples to apples” comparison is made of each of the agencies. Budget modeling allows a comparative examination of the public cost of each department, and provides the means for a financial analysis of the effects of combining any of the operations. The process to convert the financial data of each agency to a model budget requires certain conventions and assumptions. departments are reformatted.
First, the annual budgets of each of the fire
We categorize the line item accounts of each
department’s general fund into three major classifications: personal services, materials and services, and capital outlay. The classifications are further sub-divided to permit the tracking of program cost (such as: fringe benefits, maintenance, and part-time firefighters). All jobs are identified and indexed to compensation level. Each position is extrapolated to the model budget based on the costs associated with the job (salary and benefits) for a full-year based on the number of hours per week worked.
203
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
We identify all non-tax revenues and subtract them from agency expenditures to produce the estimated general operating tax requirements of each jurisdiction.
We
consider that the resultant sum fairly estimates the amount of public tax support that each agency requires to sustain the current level of fire and emergency medical services, regardless of the source of the jurisdiction’s tax revenues. Generally, we use a set of standard conventions when combining the modeled budgets of individual agencies for analysis. Depending on local situations, we may apply other special protocols to our calculation of the financial impact of unification. Regular and special conventions observed in our analysis of the Alachua County study area are: •
Compensation level: In most cases, the salary costs for the jobs of any unified agency are calculated on the highest compensation level of current (or similar) positions. We may assign an assumed compensation level to new positions created for the purposes of analysis. Some job classifications within a separate agency may have more than one level of compensation assigned. If we are not able to identify the actual salary that is paid in such cases, we usually weight our compensation estimate to about 70% of the high-end of the salary scale to allow for a tendency (over time) for a group of workers to reach maximum wage.
•
Job classifications: Similar, yet different positions and classifications may exist in each of the agencies. We may combine some similar titles in an effort to simplify the comparison of the agencies’ jobs.
•
Maintenance: Maintenance costs of individual agencies are added together when estimating the effects of combining agencies. Actual maintenance expenditure is likely to be somewhat less than the sum because of the elimination of duplication; and because the increased resource base of a unified jurisdiction may permit the disposal of apparatus and/or facilities that are more costly to maintain.
•
Capital Replacement Funding: Budget figures currently in place for capital replacement funding are utilized in creation of the model budgets, since the need for the existing capital replacement efforts is unrelated to any given strategy.
•
Overtime: The ratio of overtime to regular salaries can vary widely based on circumstances existing within a particular agency in any given year. Thus, a blended overtime ratio is used in the model budget that represents a mid-point in overtime usage by the agencies involved.
204
Alachua County, Florida
•
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Administrative and Support Personnel: Since the twenty year plan identifies the need for significant increases in operational personnel, some associated increase can be anticipated in administrative and support positions. Thus, additional positions are created in typical administrative and support job classifications in order to retain a ratio of administrative/support positions to operations positions that is similar to the ratio now in place within the combining agencies.
205
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Future Organizational Strategy “A” – Autonomous Organizations In this organizational strategy, the departments would continue as separate and independent organizations without any significant change in partnering opportunities. Autonomy provides each governing board with the most organizational control because, under this strategy, the agencies continue to make fire protection decisions considering only unilateral issues. The strategy represents a perpetuation of the status quo. It is useful as a means by which to measure the other strategies.
Organizational Structure- Strategy “A” No change would occur in the organizational structure of the fire protection system in Alachua County under this strategy. Alachua County would continue to provide fire protection to those areas outside the unincorporated municipalities through the use of its MSTU tax. These services would continue to be provided both directly through ACFR and indirectly through contractual agreements with other service providers. ACFR would maintain its own organizational structure, operating divisions, administrative and support functions and independent capital improvement plans. The individual municipalities would continue to provide fire protection to the areas inside their respective corporate limits by using General Fund revenue. Each would be free to operate their own fire department or contract with another service provider, such as ACFR, to provide service on their behalf.
In addition, in each case where the fire
services of the municipality were shown to be of value to Alachua County, contracts to provide service outside the boundaries of the municipality could continue to be negotiated. The private, non-profit fire departments would also continue to exist and, provided sufficient performance standards were met and benefit could be shown, Alachua County could continue to provide service contracts to those providers to serve certain portions of the unincorporated County.
206
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Assumptions made within this strategy are as follows:
•
Each current provider continues independent operation.
•
ACFR continues as the primary EMS transport provider to the entire County.
•
ACFR continues as the Emergency Management authority for the County.
•
The cities of Archer, Alachua, and Hawthorne continue to contract for fire services with ACFR.
•
ACFR continues to contract for fire services with other agencies for the service areas they currently protect, with adjustments in those contract areas occurring only when an ACFR station is built in closer proximity as the suburban class areas develops.
•
Gainesville and ACFR continue the use of the Designated Assistance Agreement, or some derivative thereof that obligates each to cooperative deployment and closest force response. This would be necessary in order for this strategy to achieve nonredundant facility deployment between these two agencies.
•
The agencies would all continue to operate with staffing methodology as it is now. This would assume that those agencies relying significantly on volunteers would continue to have success with aggressive recruitment and retention programs.
•
System expansion would occur in the area of facilities, apparatus, and staffing as directed in this Fire Rescue Master Plan with the cost of each such expansion being carried by the agency initiating the action, regardless of system-wide benefit.
Cost Projections- Strategy “A” This strategy calls for continued autonomous operation and funding of the various agencies. In addition, the deployment changes in staffing, facilities, and apparatus involved only GFR and ACFR. The remaining agencies were expected to continue operating in similar fashion as they are today. Therefore, in conducting projections for this strategy, we considered the budgets of ACFR and GFR separately and conducted a cost model for each agency. We emphasize one very important point. This financial analysis provides a “snapshot” of the fiscal effects of the deployment, resource, and staffing changes as if the action occurs during the current budgetary year. Our analysis does not attempt to predict the actual tax rate after implementation.
207
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The ESCi analysis uses the current appropriations and pay levels of the agencies to produce a model budget that can be modified or amended to reasonably reflect budgetary changes relating to the recommended deployment and organizational model. This methodology permits a comparison of the “what if” of a recommended deployment plan against the baseline of current spending. Comparative modeling is considered more accurate than forecasting because the taxation and expenditure policies of units of government are continuously subjected to changes in politics and law. The outcome of the budget process of each governmental agency is contingent on numerous human actions that are extremely hard to predict.
Therefore, the further out a budgetary
forecast attempts to anticipate taxation, the less accurate the outcome will be because of human action. The following table reflects the modeled operating budget of Gainesville Fire Rescue if all recommended changes in facilities, apparatus, and staffing were currently in effect and that agency were operating as an autonomous emergency services agency. Table 35: GFR Modeled Future Operating Budget Projection- Strategy A
Strategy A- Gainesville Projected Budget Operating Budget
Amount
Personal Services Administrative Operational Overtime Benefits PS Total Materials & Services
1,310,737 8,068,941 239,161 3,789,017 $13,407,857
Materials
218,648
Services
1,335,057
New Operational Costs Maintenance Municipal Overhead MS Total Capital Outlay Reserve Contingency Ending Fund Balance Total Requirements
60,000 159,995 0 $1,773,700 $100,500 $329,104 0 0 $15,611,160
208
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
In addition to the operating budget projection, a projection of total capital outlay costs (again, in today’s dollars) that could be anticipated by GFR is provided in the information below. Table 36: GFR Capital Cost Projection- Strategy A
Strategy A- GFR Projected Capital Costs Added Assets New Stations Station Relocations Admin space, 7,500 sq ft Engine Vehicles Rescue Vehicles
2 4 $825,000 3 0
Capital Requirements Construction
$8,254,228
Vehicles
$1,050,000
Total Capital Need
$9,304,228
The following table reflects the modeled operating budget of Alachua County Fire Rescue if all recommended changes in facilities, apparatus, and staffing were currently in effect and that agency were operating as an autonomous emergency services agency.
209
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 37: ACFR Modeled Operating Budget Projection- Strategy A
Strategy A- ACFR Projected Budget Operating Budget
Amount
Personal Services 1,900,679
Administrative Operational
11,069,548 2,385,848
Overtime Benefits
6,049,007
PS Total Materials & Services
$21,405,083
Materials
985,081
Services
1,828,628 90,000
New Operational Costs Maintenance Municipal Overhead MS Total Capital Outlay Reserve Contingency
588,900 0 $3,492,609 $179,676 0 $189,543 0
Ending Fund Balance Total Requirements
$25,266,911
In addition to the operating budget projection, a projection of total capital outlay costs (again, in today’s dollars) that could be anticipated by ACFR is provided in the information below. Table 38: ACFR Capital Cost Projection- Strategy A
Strategy A- ACFR Projected Capital Costs Added Assets New Stations Station Relocations Classroom, 7,500 sq ft Engine Vehicles Rescue Vehicles
3 2 $825,000 3 4
Capital Requirements Construction
$7,282,690
Vehicles
$1,850,000
Total Capital Need
$9,132,690
210
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The following table summarizes the projected operating budgets and factors in projected general operating revenue17 to determine the necessary general operating levy required for operation of each agency. For purposes of strategy comparison, the amounts from each agency are also totaled. Table 39: Financial Analysis Summary- Strategy A
Modeled Budget Modeled Operating Revenue Projected Operating Tax Levy Projected Capital Outlay
$ $ $ $
Financial Analysis - Strategy "A" Gainesville FR Alachua County FR Total: GFR and ACFR 15,611,160 $ 25,266,911 $ 40,878,071 399,228 $ 6,488,380 $ 6,887,608 15,211,932 $ 18,778,531 $ 33,990,463 9,304,228 $ 9,132,690 $ 18,436,918
Strengths and Weaknesses- Strategy “A” One of the primary strengths of this strategy is its ease of implementation. Autonomy provides each governing board with the most organizational control because, under this strategy, the agencies continue to make fire protection decisions considering only unilateral issues. Indeed, an individual jurisdiction, should it so choose, could lower its own service performance objectives and thereby reduce local costs, without detrimental impact on the agencies around it. Each agency merely needs to continue with its operations as it has in the past, taking into consideration the deployment recommendations contained in this master plan. This is one reason that, while we develop our deployment recommendations without regard to jurisdictional boundaries, we have attempted to provide the information in such as manner as to allow the user to quickly identify which agency would be affected by each deployment modification or addition. This will permit each agency to dissect and use the segments of this master plan that are applicable.
17
No revenue for payments made by either agency to the other under the Designated Assistance
Agreement are included in this projection. It is anticipated that DAA payments will continue to fluctuate based on annexations and changes in response assignments made by either agency, making even reasonably accurate projections impossible.
211
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Organizational structures and financial sources are in place and one could argue that the agencies are reasonably effective and efficient. However, as the study points out, neither ACFR nor GFR are fully meeting their performance objectives at this time. Despite best efforts, the total coordination of deployment and operational planning are difficult, at best, in the autonomous model when applied to a growing area such as Alachua County. The looming issue of continuing annexations makes capital investment and even staff additions by either agency a most difficult decision. The autonomous and independent strategy fails to take advantage of the larger resource pool, including the resources of individual employees in each agency whose talent might benefit both ACFR and GFR. It’s all too likely that opportunities to save money based on simple economy of scale are also missed.
212
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Future Organizational Strategy “B” – Operational Consolidation This strategy joins two or more entities, in their entirety, through the execution of an IGA. The resulting fire department features a single organizational structure and chain of command. Depending on the form of the agreement(s) establishing the organization, employees may remain with the original employer, transfer to one of the other employers, or transfer to an entirely new entity (such as a service authority). The unique feature of an operational consolidation is that existing governing boards are preserved.
The management team of a department operating under an operational
consolidation reports to each political body, usually through a joint oversight board established expressly for the purpose. The political entities prepare and adopt separate budgets, and retain responsibility for overall policy and taxation. The unified department is funded by IGA, usually through the melding of individual budgets or by the apportionment of cost in accordance with a predetermined formula. The notion of shared power was first developed in the Western United States and was initially aimed at water districts, recreation and shared utilities, however, the expansion was eventually to include public safety agreements and systems. Typically this structure, permissible under Florida law, allows for joint governance and accountability as well as shared responsibility. This would allow both the Cities and County to control essential public safety services. In essence, this strategy is already in use in Alachua County, at least to some degree. Existing cities of Archer, Alachua, and Hawthorne have consolidated their fire protection resources with ACFR through an interlocal agreement. However, each retains the legal authority to continue with this method of service provision or rescind the IGA and return to independent services.
Organizational Structure- Strategy “B” Our presentation of this strategy focuses on the two entities that are most likely to find efficiencies and cost avoidance through such an operational consolidation effort- ACFR and GFR. As has been demonstrated, both agencies’ jurisdictions will continue to experience development and population increase.
213
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Autonomous planning by adjacent agencies can, and often does, result in wellintentioned placement of facilities, resources, or special units being placed in proximity to one another where a single facility or resource could serve both. If the two agencies were to undertake separate master plans with separate capital improvement efforts, the result could be redundant deployment of both facilities and resources. Under this strategy, the ACFR and GFR would consolidate (but not legally merge) into a single operating unit through the execution of Interlocal Governmental Agreements. Other agencies, however, could have the option of joining in the consolidated operation if they chose to do so and an equitable IGA could be negotiated. This strategy would also consolidate the funding sources of those geographic areas into a dependent taxing district through a Municipal Services Taxing Unit established to fund this initiative. This would provide for the availability of a system-wide equitable funding solution for any agencies or jurisdictions that choose to opt in, while carving out areas that desire to continue providing their own fire rescue services. Most likely funding scenarios under this model would be a single Municipal Services Taxing Unit or Municipal Services Benefit Unit. The MSTU/MSBU funding method provides an annual opportunity for any municipality that desires to opt out of the consolidated system, to do so by returning to its former methods of independent funding. A Joint Powers Authority agreement (JPA) would provide specific governance. It would be our recommendation that a joint governance oversight board be established that has reporting requirements to both the City of Gainesville Administrator and the County Manager. While our strategy would be a consolidation of administrative, support and operational resources into a single functioning entity, the facilities, apparatus and staff would continue to be owned or provided by the various municipalities involved in the venture. The Interlocal Governmental Agreements, as well as the Joint Powers Authority agreement, would specify the conditions under which the apparatus, equipment, and staff of the various entities would be united in order to create the effect of operating a single agency. Likewise, the IGA and JPA would establish the methods under which the operationally consolidate agency could be “disassembled” in the event an individual municipality chose to opt out and re-establish independent operation of a fire rescue service.
214
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The greatest efficiency in this strategy would be seen with the elimination of most redundancy. A single operating entity will have the ability to identify and eliminate- or, more importantly, avoid- duplication in facilities, resources, staff, or special units. Often in cases of unification, executive positions can be merged and other efficiencies, or economy of scale, can be found in certain administrative and support positions. This however, would require negotiated agreements among the entities for any downsizing that would occur as a result, particularly in the administrative and management areas. Our projections for future staffing needs in this strategy indicated a potential to decrease administrative and support positions by 14% and operational line positions by 0.003% compared to the autonomous strategy. Since EMS transport and Emergency Management would continue to be operated countywide by the new functionally consolidated agency, a split budgeting mechanism would need to continue to the extent that the EMS and EM programs would be funded from the countywide General Fund that included non-participating municipalities. Assumptions made within this strategy are as follows:
•
The cities of Archer, Alachua, and Hawthorne opt to remain in the operationally consolidated agency.
•
A new MSTU is established encompassing the unincorporated areas of Alachua County and the Cities of Gainesville, Alachua, Archer, and Hawthorne. The existing tax rates used for fire protection are lowered by an offsetting amount.
•
Entities participating in the consolidated agency are reimbursed for their system expenditures and investments from the MSTU.
•
A Joint Powers Authority is established to oversee the functions of the new operationally consolidated joint agency, with reporting responsibility to both the cities and the county.
•
ACFR and GFR consolidate their full operations into a single functioning entity under the direction of the Joint Powers Authority.
•
Redundancy in specific positions or programs is eliminated through negotiated downsizing, where appropriate.
•
The new consolidated agency continues as the primary EMS transport and Emergency Management provider to the entire County. These programs continue to be funded from the County General Fund. 215
Alachua County, Florida
•
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The new consolidated agency continues to contract for fire services with nonparticipating agencies for the service areas better served by that arrangement. These agencies include: Cross Creek, High Springs, LaCrosse, Melrose, Micanopy, Newberry, Waldo, Windsor.
•
Administrative and support space currently used by the two agencies would be reorganized to accommodate the consolidated agency. Expansion of administrative and support facilities may be necessary in the future (particularly in the training division), but is not included in the projected capital expenditures.
•
The need for the “Designated Assistance Agreement” is eliminated through a single shared funding mechanism. The entire system is funded through a single source and all resources can easily function to their best advantage system-wide, without regard to previous jurisdictional boundaries.
•
The agencies would continue to operate with staffing methodology as it is now. This assumes that those agencies relying significantly on volunteers would continue to have success with aggressive recruitment and retention programs.
Cost Projections- Strategy “B” This strategy calls for an operational consolidation of GFR and ACFR into a single functioning agency, while maintaining individual legal status as a part of their respective governments. The remaining agencies were expected to continue operating in similar fashion as they are today. In conducting projections for this strategy, we considered the budgets of ACFR and GFR as being combined and conducted a cost model for the consolidated agency. As with the previous strategy, we emphasize one very important point. This financial analysis provides a “snapshot” of the fiscal effects of the deployment, resource, and staffing changes as if the action occurs during the current budgetary year. Our analysis does not attempt to predict the actual tax rate after implementation. The following table reflects the modeled future operating budget of an operationally consolidated agency if all recommended changes in facilities, apparatus, and staffing were currently in effect and that agency were operating as a unified emergency services agency.
216
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 40: Operationally Consolidated Agency Modeled Operating Budget ProjectionStrategy B
Strategy “B” Budget Projection Operating Budget
Amount
Personal Services 2,938,783
Administrative Operational
20,250,434 1,620,035
Overtime Benefits
9,772,768
PS Total Materials & Services
$34,582,020
Materials
1,203,729
Services
2,847,317 150,000
New Operational Costs Maintenance Municipal Overhead MS Total Capital Outlay Reserve Contingency
748,895 0 $4,949,940 $280,176 $329,104 $189,543 0
Ending Fund Balance Total Requirements
$40,330,783
In addition to the operating budget projection, a projection of total capital outlay costs (again, in today’s dollars) that could be anticipated by the new operationally consolidated agency is provided in the information below. Table 41: Operationally Consolidated Agency Capital Cost Projection- Strategy B Strategy B- Operationally Consolidated Agency, Projected Capital Costs Added Assets New Stations Station Relocations Admin space, 10,000 sq ft Engine Vehicles Rescue Vehicles
5 6 $1,100,000 6 4
Capital Requirements Construction Vehicles Total Capital Need
$14,986,918 $2,900,000 $17,886,918
217
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The following table summarizes the projected operating budget and factors in projected general operating revenue to determine the necessary general operating levy required for operation of the consolidated agency. Table 42: Financial Analysis Summary- Strategy B
Financial Analysis - Strategy "B" Operationally Consolidated Agency (GFR-ACFR) Modeled Budget
$
40,330,783
Modeled Operating Revenue
$
6,887,608
Projected Operating Tax Levy
$
33,443,175
Projected Capital Outlay
$
17,886,918
Strengths and Weaknesses- Strategy “B” Operational consolidations are sometimes considered as an intermediate step leading to a full merger. The main advantage of the strategy offers governing boards the ability to negotiate and monitor desirable outcomes for the management of a particular service. Essentially, a failure on the part of an operational consolidation to perform at expected levels of efficiency, effectiveness, or cost savings can result in the “disassembly” of such a consolidation, and a return to autonomous service. This gives some elected officials a higher level of comfort in going forward with a decision to unify fire service across a geographical region. An additional advantage is that this strategy allows for a shared and common funding source, which negates the need for complex operational formulas and practices, such as those that currently exist with the shared response areas between the City of Gainesville and Alachua County.
Instead, all resources would be placed in the mix and equal
distribution of costs would be shared, as well as resources between both agencies under this initiative. A disadvantage of operational consolidation is inherent administrative inflexibility due to the political complexity of the arrangement. An administrative team, who must answer to two or more political bodies, might become whip sawn by critical issues and limited in an ability to respond to change due to contractual requirements. Consequently, conflicting policy directives may sometimes be troublesome in an operationally consolidated agency.
218
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Much depends on the founding political relationship, the contractual agreement, and the skills of management to assure the success of a long-term functional consolidation. Even so, many IGAs are in effect throughout the nation, successfully centralizing the administrative, support, and operational services of fire departments. One particularly complex (but very successful) one is located in Orange County, California, where the Orange County Fire Authority provides fire and emergency medical services to 22 cities and the unincorporated areas of the county. A joint board made up of one elected representative from each municipality and two from the county at-large provides governance for the Orange County Fire Authority.
219
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Future Organizational Strategy “C” – Full Merger, Fire District Under certain circumstances in law, fire departments can join into a single entity. This formal approach unites not only programs, but also the fire department organizations themselves. State laws addressing political subdivisions usually detail a process for legal unification. Typically, state laws draw a distinction between words like “annexation”, “merger”, and “consolidation” when speaking of legal unification.
Organizationally, however, the
outcome of any such legal process results in one unified fire district.
The major
differences between the legal strategies relate to governance and taxation issues. In many states, some process of “inclusion” exists that essentially involves the annexation of one entity to another, preserving the governing board and the taxing authority of the surviving district.
A legal merger, on the other hand, usually entails the complete
dissolution of two or more districts with the concurrent formation of a single new entity (and board) in place of the former. The key feature of both forms of legal unification (merger and inclusion) is a single tax rate applied to the whole of the resulting fire district.
Organizational Structure- Strategy “C” As with the previous section, our presentation of this strategy focuses on the two entities that are most likely to find efficiencies and cost avoidance through a merger- ACFR and GFR. Full merger assumes a new governmental entity within this scenario. Most common would be a Fire Rescue Taxing District. Both the City of Gainesville and County Commissions
would
appoint
joint
governance
equally.
This
enables
relative
independence of the newly established entity, while ensuring that both the City of Gainesville and the County have equally distributed representation in the overall management of fire protection. This model allows for joint governance between City of Gainesville and County, operational efficiency (with resources being owned and directed under one entity), and shared accountability between City of Gainesville and County officials.
220
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The Fire District, which could be funded either as a dependent or independent entity, would consolidate all costs of GFR and ACFR operations equally among the taxable properties within the District.
Likewise, the Fire District would legally consolidate
ownership and authority for fire protection resources within the two existing agencies. This recognizes that all stakeholders receive equity in resources for operations, support, and administrative functions. The newly formed Fire District would include all unincorporated areas of the County. However, fire protection in those areas where service from a nearby municipality or private volunteer department would be more effective could continue to be served through contract. In this case, though, the contract would now be between those departments and the Fire District as opposed to Alachua County. EMS transport and Emergency Management could continue to be operated countywide by the new District. As with the previous strategy, a split budgeting mechanism could continue such that the costs for EMS and EM programs could be identified and funded from the countywide General Fund through an IGA between the County and the Fire District. The coordination of this effort may be simplified to some degree if the Fire District were formed as a dependent taxing district of the County. Efficiency in this model would be expected primarily through a unification of support and administrative functions. While we fully anticipate modest cost savings, the greater energy for unification should come from operational and public safety efficiencies and the ability to plan for facility, resource, and staffing deployment regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. Our projections for future staffing needs in this strategy indicated a potential to decrease administrative and support positions by 14% and operational line positions by 0.003% compared to the autonomous strategy. Assumptions made within this strategy are as follows:
•
The cities of Archer, Alachua, and Hawthorne opt to be included in the new Fire District.
•
A new Fire District is established encompassing the unincorporated areas of Alachua County and the Cities of Gainesville, Alachua, Archer, and Hawthorne. The Fire District is established as a dependent taxing district of the County, with its District Board comprised of representation from participating geographic and political areas. The existing tax rates used for fire protection are lowered by an offsetting amount. 221
Alachua County, Florida
•
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The District Board will oversee the functions of the newly merged agency and will be responsible for recommending tax rates and expenditures.
•
The newly formed Fire District is transferred the authority and ownership of necessary fire and rescue facilities, apparatus, resources, and staffing as necessary to initiate provision of continuing services.
•
ACFR and GFR merge their full operations into a single agency under the Fire District.
•
Redundancy in specific positions or programs is eliminated through downsizing, redistribution, or attrition where appropriate.
•
The new Fire District continues as the primary EMS transport and Emergency Management provider to the entire County. These programs continue to be funded from the County General Fund.
•
The Fire District continues to contract for fire services with non-participating agencies for the service areas they are in closer proximity to. These agencies include: Cross Creek, High Springs, LaCrosse, Melrose, Micanopy, Newberry, Waldo, Windsor.
•
Administrative and support space currently used by the two agencies would be reorganized to accommodate the combined agency. Expansion of administrative and support facilities may be necessary in the future (particularly in the training division), but is not included in the projected capital expenditures.
•
The need for the “Designated Assistance Agreement” is eliminated through merger into a single agency and taxing district.
Cost Projections- Strategy “C” This strategy calls for a legal merger of GFR and ACFR into a single functioning agency, established as a Fire Taxing District. The remaining agencies were expected to continue operating in similar fashion as they are today. In conducting projections for this strategy, we considered the budgets of ACFR and GFR as being combined and conducted a cost model for the merged agency. As with the previous strategy, we emphasize one very important point. This financial analysis provides a “snapshot” of the fiscal effects of the deployment, resource, and staffing changes as if the action occurs during the current budgetary year. Our analysis does not attempt to predict the actual tax rate after implementation.
222
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The fiscal analysis contained in this strategy is, in effect, identical to that of strategy B, the operational consolidation. This is because both strategies call for the agencies to conduct themselves as a unified department. The difference is in the legal structure of a merger, which creates a new entity and eliminates those that it replaces. However, since assets and other resources are transferred, operational costs remain projected in the same manner as with the operational consolidation. The following table reflects the modeled operating budget of a legally merged agency if all recommended changes in facilities, apparatus, and staffing were currently in effect. Table 43: Merged Agency Modeled Operating Budget Projection- Strategy C
Strategy “C” Budget Projection Operating Budget
Amount
Personal Services Administrative Operational Overtime Benefits PS Total Materials & Services
2,938,783 20,250,434 1,620,035 9,772,768 $34,582,020
Materials
1,203,729
Services
2,847,317
New Operational Costs Maintenance Municipal Overhead MS Total Capital Outlay Reserve Contingency Ending Fund Balance Total Requirements
150,000 748,895 0 $4,949,940 $280,176 $329,104 $189,543 0 $40,330,783
In addition to the operating budget projection, a projection of total capital outlay costs (again, in today’s dollars) that could be anticipated by the new merged agency is provided in the information below.
223
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 44: Merged Agency Capital Cost Projection- Strategy C Strategy C- Merged Agency, Projected Capital Costs Added Assets New Stations Station Relocations Admin space, 10,000 sq ft Engine Vehicles Rescue Vehicles
5 6 $1,100,000 6 4
Capital Requirements Construction
$14,986,918
Vehicles
$2,900,000
Total Capital Need
$17,886,918
The following table summarizes the projected operating budget and factors in projected general operating revenue to determine the necessary general operating levy required for operation of the consolidated agency. Table 45: Financial Analysis Summary- Strategy C
Financial Analysis - Strategy "C" Merged Agency (GFR-ACFR), Fire District Modeled Budget
$
40,330,783
Modeled Operating Revenue
$
6,887,608
Projected Operating Tax Levy
$
33,443,175
Projected Capital Outlay
$
17,886,918
Strengths and Weaknesses- Strategy “C” While the strategy of a merger takes greatest advantage of the opportunities for economy of scale, centralized planning and control, full operational efficiencies, etc, it tends to be viewed as removing some elements of local control over a critical governmental service. This is often enough to cause communities to decline consideration of this or any form of unification. Fortunately, there are many examples of communities around the country that have pursued merger of services and devised the organization and governance in such a way that local control is still felt and community pride is achieved. In some cases, even the names on the side of the fire trucks continue to reflect local communities and neighborhoods. 224
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
As with the previous strategy, this strategy allows for a shared and common funding source, which negates the need for complex operational formulas and practices. Again, all resources would be placed in the mix and equal distribution of costs, as well as resources, would be shared between all areas of the new fire district under this initiative. An advantage of merge is the elimination of the administrative inflexibility often seen in operational consolidations due to the political complexity of those arrangements. Conflicting policy issues between communities are handled at the level of elected officials, as they should be, and are less likely to have direct impact on the agency management. Likewise, the merger tends to eliminate the fire department fro becoming embroiled in political issues such as consolidation. In the operational consolidation strategy, the ability to “disassemble” the unified department is listed as a possible advantage. However, this ability can be a two-edged sword. In several sad cases around the U.S., fire departments or other government agencies operating effectively under an operational consolidation have inexplicably been ripped apart and returned to independent functioning for reasons entirely unrelated to their effectiveness of efficiency. Typically, time reveals a motive driven by other policy issues, land disputes, or personality conflicts at the heart of the break up. The merger also tends to be viewed as the most stable of all unification strategies by agency management and staff alike. Despite the understandable upheaval that comes with a unification effort, most employees can see “the light at the end of the tunnel” once the unification strategy is communicated. The ability to see an ultimate settling down of the disruption and a return to stable organizational culture is helpful in negotiating the changes. The merger provides this comfort level while operational or functional consolidations tend to be viewed as a step on the way to further change and can leave employees in a state of continuing flux.
225
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Findings: Recommended Long-Term Strategy Our report has outlined three service delivery options that are available to Alachua County that we consider to feasible. We believe that a unification strategy of a full legal merger and creation of a dependent taxing district would best serve the public safety needs of the metropolitan area over the course of this plan’s twenty year period. It is important to note, as described elsewhere in this report, that both departments offer high quality service to the customers. However, we believe that unification, both operationally and fiscally, will produce new synergies and long range planning success that will be better able to weather the challenges of annexation, growth and community change. We also believe that a more streamlined and integrated organization will be better prepared to meet public safety challenges which may lie ahead. The information provided in this long term strategy recommendation is not inherently new, thought its analysis may be fresh. The notion that the citizens and taxpayers served by Gainesville and Alachua County Fire Rescue may be afforded a more efficient and capable public safety system through unification has been discussed and supported by previous analysis. Labor has expressed a willingness to support unification and to work with management to address necessary issues. Perhaps most important, the public has expressed support for the concept in public referendum, thereby encouraging the elected officials to pursue the concept if it shows the promise of increased effectiveness, coordinated planning, and reduced cost. We believe our analysis has shown those conditions to be present. We recommend uniting ACFR and GFR into a single Fire District as a dependent taxing authority under Alachua County. While we believe that an optional method would be the establishment of an independent fire-taxing district, we also recognize a general reluctance on the part of elected officials, as well as a lack of public desire, to create additional layers of government with levying authority. Subsequently, it appears more prudent at this time to pursue a dependent district governed by a joint board with equal representation from the various electorates.
226
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The fiscal analysis and cost projections reviewed earlier in this report further point to evidence that an organizational strategy for unification should be pursued. The following table summarizes the financial analysis by comparing the total cost of fire protection and total necessary operating levy for both Alachua County and the City of Gainesville under each of the three strategies provided in this report. Table 46: Financial Analysis- All Strategy Comparison Financial Analysis - All Strategy Comparison Strategy "A" Strategy "B" Total: Independent Consolidated Agency GFR and ACFR Modeled Budget $ 40,878,071 $ 40,330,783 Modeled Operating Revenue $ 6,887,608 $ 6,887,608 Projected Operating Tax Levy $ 33,990,463 $ 33,443,175 Projected Capital Outlay $ 18,436,918 $ 17,886,918 Projected Total Capital Savings $ 550,000 Projected Annual Savings $ 547,288
Strategy "C' Merged Agency/District $ $ $ $
40,330,783 6,887,608 33,443,175 17,886,918
$ $
550,000 547,288
As can be seen from this table, our analysis of the projected costs of fire and emergency medical protection under the completed master plan in a unified organizational strategy (single provider model) demonstrates an annual savings of over $500,000. While this may not seem significant in comparison with the overall projected operating levy of over $30 million, the savings would be ongoing and the cumulative effect of several years of such efficiency is substantial and warrants pursuit. Though relatively insignificant, we project an overall savings of $550,000 in capital expenses over the course of the twentyyear improvements, primarily through the use of a single administrative and support facility. Greater detail on the projected differences in specific budget categories can be seen in the following table, comparing autonomous organizational strategy with unified organizational strategy, if all recommended changes in facilities, apparatus, and staffing were complete.
227
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 47: Cost Projections By Budget Category- Autonomous Model and Unified Models Cost Projections By Budget Category- Autonomous Model and Unified Models Autonomous Depts Personal Services Administrative Operational Overtime Benefits
$ $ $ $ PS Total $ Materials & Services Materials $ Services $ New Operational Costs $ Maintenance $ Municipal Overhead $ MS Total $ Capital Outlay $ Reserve $ Contingency $ Ending Fund Balance $ Total Requirements $
Unified ACFR/GFR
Increase/Decrease
3,211,416 19,138,489 2,625,009 9,838,024 34,812,940
$ $ $ $ $
2,938,783 20,250,434 1,620,035 9,772,768 34,582,020
($272,633.30) $1,111,944.60 ($1,004,973.80) ($65,256.10) ($230,919.60)
1,203,729 3,163,685 150,000 748,895 5,266,309 280,176 329,104 189,543 40,878,071
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1,203,729 2,847,317 150,000 748,895 4,949,940 280,176 329,104 189,543 40,330,783
$0.50 ($316,368.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($316,368.50) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($547,288.10)
228
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Section IV- Short and Mid-Term Strategies Efficiency Strategies Strategies that the fire protection agencies and elected officials in Alachua County could consider to improve the overall efficiency of the fire protection system are offered in this section. These strategies, gleaned from a variety of progressive emergency service agencies, publications, and industry leaders18 are provided here after our initial review indicated they held potential for success in one or more Alachua County agencies. No single strategy is right for every department. The fact that a strategy appears in this section does not indicate it could be implemented without challenges. Thus, significant additional research and analysis at the local agency level would be necessary to ensure that implementation was advisable in any given situation.
Functional Consolidation By Program Public entities usually have broad authority under law to enter Inter Governmental Agreements (IGA’s) for the purpose of cost and service efficiency. Florida is no different in this regard.
The laws of the State of Florida address the issue, allowing
intergovernmental contracts for any lawfully authorized function, service, or facility. Under the applicable statutes, governmental entities may elect to cooperate or contract for any lawful purpose. IGA’s allow individual organizations to share resources, improve service, and to save money at the program level. Most commonly, fire departments enter partnering agreements for programs such as firefighter training, fire prevention, closest force response, and administrative/support services. In many cases, functional unification is sufficient to accomplish the cooperative goals of the agencies without considering operational agreements or mergers. It is common in the industry to functionally join such activities as purchasing, firefighter training, fire prevention, public education, apparatus maintenance, and command standby.
18
Concepts of John W. Lawton, Vincent Brannigan, Bill Manning, John Granito, and
Burton Clark were considered in formulating these strategies.
229
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The keys to the success of a functional unification strategy lie in a trusting relationship between partner agencies, the completeness of the agreement that sets up the program, and a cooperative approach to the management of the program. It should also be said that, where there is one successful partner in the enterprise and another not so successful, there is the potential to create two dissatisfied customers if service quality and performance issues are not properly negotiated in advance. In the course of our analysis of the various fire departments, we identify a number of possible opportunities for functional unification.
Such programs usually carry the
advantage of being low-cost and low-risk improvement strategies. Often, the programs serve as a foundation on which agencies build the experience and trust necessary to implement more complete unification strategies. We list some of the more common types of partnering strategies below with a short explanation of each. Functional Consolidation Concepts Program Strategy Seamless administrative and support services provided areaAdministrative & wide through IGA. Operational functions of departments Support Services remain separate. Often used as an interim program before implementation of operational or legal unification. Universal operational standards developed and adopted Operating Standards across the region. Promotes the efficiency of mutual aid operations. Responsibility for response to structural and multi-company Duty Officer emergencies shared by chief officers on a rotating schedule. Increases the overall efficiency of existing staff. Regional training program for career and volunteer personnel. Firefighter Training Provides consistent training standards across the area. Regional or county operated fire prevention program pooling Fire Prevention all existing fire prevention resources. Provides consistent effort and message across wider area. Specifications & Assures apparatus and equipment compatibility between the Purchasing partner agencies. Increases fireground efficiency. Fire station locations founded on response efficiency, with more than one agency responding from the location. Spreads Joint Fire Stations the cost of capital construction across a greater base. Provides a more efficient emergency response system. Specialty Apparatus Spreads the cost of expensive and/or seldom used tools & Equipment across a greater base. Lowers overall cost to community.
230
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
This strategy presents the potential for functional consolidation of various administrative and support services of two or more of the fire departments with no change to the current deployment of facilities and equipment. Potential programs that might benefit from functional consolidation could include training, maintenance, fire prevention, public education, and others. Operational functions of fire suppression, emergency medical services and rescue would remain unchanged. A functional consolidation of one or more of the agencies’ support functions or ancillary programs would permit regionally shared support services. Thus, it can be said that elimination of redundant programs or services and a reduction in cost are the significant factors in this efficiency strategy. Implementation Costs
•
Staff planning and implementation time
•
Resource or facility modifications necessary to accommodate combined efforts
Potential Future Savings Functional consolidations have been shown to be effective at reducing or avoiding costs in many cases. As an example, a February, 2004, analysis of cost savings in a threeagency consolidated training program operated by three fire districts in the Chicago area showed that each agency saved between 69% and 71% over the cost of independent training programs providing similar quality in programming19. In addition to cost savings, functional program consolidations often present new opportunities for program enhancement to the benefit of all participating agencies.
19
“Southwest United Fire Districts Cooperative Services Study, 2004”- Emergency Services
Consulting, inc.
231
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Implementation of “Firetrac” or “Firestat” Concept This strategy involves the implementation of a Department community responsibility and accountability program commonly called “Firetrac” or “Firestat.” This concept, frequently used in law enforcement agencies, assigns community responsibility and accountability to fire department officials in their area of responsibility with associated benchmarks, accomplishments, goals and objectives. As an example, the fire marshal would be held accountable to fire loss trends, inspections statistics, and life safety program effectiveness, etc. An EMS official would be accountable to save rates, in hospital out of service times, etc. A fire operations official would be accountable to response times, personnel sick leave usage, fire occurrence frequencies, etc. At regularly scheduled meetings fire officers would meet with Department administrators to report upon their areas of accountability, where improvements could be made, and explanations of aberrations. The program would motivate officials to institute measures to meet benchmarks, goals, and objectives. Implementation Costs Implementation costs would be the staff time required to develop and implement the program and the staff time associated with the required meeting with administration. Additional expenditures on needed computers, software, and media equipment, as well as support staff required to maintain the infrastructure, may also be anticipated. Potential Future Savings More efficient and effective accomplishment of Department goals and objectives can reduce overall expenditures and redundancy. Political Considerations Overcoming fire department staff resistance to stringent accountability Primary action steps and timelines • Assignment of a lead person and appropriate group to develop the program.
•
Development time – three months
•
Review and approval – three months
•
Implementation – six months
232
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Revise Work Schedules Based On Workload Demands Commensurate with private industry and law enforcement, the fire department staffing resources would be assigned to work schedules based on the workload of the community. Currently, with little exception, the same number of personnel are assigned to a given work shift at any given time of the day with no relationship to emergency incident frequencies and/or severity, or any other consideration of workload, etc. As an example, the same numbers of firefighters are assigned to a station at 9:00 a.m. as are assigned at 3:00 a.m. With our current ability to analyze call frequency and the times of the day most responses occur, greater numbers of personnel could be assigned during the high call load period instead of the current goal of simple 24 hour coverage. The ability to rapidly expand the resource would be required for those down times when a significant incident did occur. Implementation Costs Implementation could be achieved at currents costs, though significant renegotiation of labor contracts would be assured. Some impact could be seen in overtime rates if eligibility for FLSA 7(k) exemption were lost. Potential Future Savings Some reduction in staffing costs could be seen in reduced positions during off-peak workload periods. Some reduction in the cost of leave usage could result from fewer “minimum staffing” slots needing to be backfilled on overtime during these periods of low service demands. Desired staffing increases could be met with incumbent personnel, along with lower needs for future staffing additions. Political Considerations Significant dialogue and communication with current labor unions would be necessary. This dialogue would need to begin with the understanding that, during periods of decreased staffing levels, basic standards of cover would not be met, leaving the agencies unable to meet all critical tasks identified in the standards of cover analysis. While such occurrences could be guaranteed, this staffing methodology inherently accepts that increased risk and, instead, emphasizes analysis and scheduling meant to reduce the frequency of understaffed incidents. 233
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
These staffing methods have also been notoriously difficult to “sell” to the general public when applied to fire suppression forces. In addition, the effect of reduced staffing, even during certain periods of time, would have an effect on the company staffing scores in the ISO Community Fire Protection Rating, thus leading to the potential of a negative impact on insurance rates. Primary Action Steps and Timelines
•
Assignment of a lead person and appropriate group to develop the program.
•
Development time – three months
•
Departmental review and approval – three months
•
Formal negotiation with labor unions – 12 months
•
Implementation – six months
Discontinue The Use Of The ISO Grading Schedule As The Local “Yardstick” of Efficiency And Effectiveness “Much of what I see of fire suppression reminds me of the Polish cavalry charging German tanks. Bravery and energy cannot make up for an outdated doctrine” -Vincent Brannigan, Fire Chief Magazine, January 1994, page 16
The Insurance Services Office (ISO) fire insurance rating is virtually meaningless to life safety. It is a medium that ensures fire departments continue doing things the way they have done them for the past 50 years. Most homeowners and many business insurance rates are grouped so that the difference between ratings two through six, for example, is negligible. Modern fire departments are responsible for an “all hazard” protection strategy for their community with fire suppression comprising five to ten% of their workload. Emergency medical services, representing 75% of a fire department’s workload, hazardous materials, technical rescue, risk mitigation, and homeland security are a few of the major community responsibilities associated with the fire department that are not mentioned in the ISO grading program. The ISO grading, by the company’s own admission, has no relationship to life loss or injury by fire in a community.
234
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Adhering to the ISO grading schedule stymies a fire chief’s ability to implement creative, cost effective, all risk public safety programs for their community.
“Manual fire
suppression using hand held streams is an outdated, inefficient, hazardous, expensive, and unreliable method of dealing with fire. It’s a dead-end path for the fire service” (Vincent Brannigan, Fire Chief Magazine, January 1994, page 17).
The modern approach of addressing response times and staffing based on task/risk analysis, for example, is often considered contrary to the ISO grading factors. It should be remembered, though, that public fire protection remains the only local government service where public sector improvements can result in private insurance savings. Having stated this, however, some explanation is needed. Prior to 1980 and the inception of the 1980 Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, it was generally accepted that a change in Public Protection Classification (PPC) would result in a 5% to 10% reduction in property insurance rates per classification. This is no longer the case as such general estimations are currently invalid. Single Family Residential Dwelling Most insurance companies group public protection classifications for residential policies. There may be 10 different public protection classifications but there are not 10 different rate classifications for residential fire insurance.
Instead, the majority of insurance
companies group classes 1 through 4 together, 5 and 6 together, 7 and 8 together and 9 and 10 separately resulting in about 5 different rate classifications. Most companies only have 5 or 6 different class groupings. Ironically, the one major insurance carrier (State Farm) that did differentiate between each PPC in its rate structure has abandoned this structure entirely and instead develops its rates based strictly on loss experience in variant sub-zones that are determined by zip codes. This is a new rating concept and probably will not withstand the test of time. It is estimated that State Farm writes around 30% of all dwelling policies in the United States. In general, it is fair to state that residential rate payers do not realize much savings, if any, in their individual policies unless there is a multiple grade change in their rating.
235
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Specifically Rated Commercial Property This group includes both small and large commercial buildings and is further divided by what kinds of fire suppression systems are in place specifically automatic sprinkler systems.
Those properties with Needed Fire Flow of 3500 GPM or less are included
in the calculation of the Public Protection Classification (PPC). If the Needed Fire Flow is greater than 3500 GPM, these properties develop an individual PPC when being specifically rated by ISO. The same factors apply in the individual PPC calculations but it is much less complicated. ISO developed this rating strategy in 1980 and the result is that large properties do not negatively influence the PPC for a community and inversely the PPC of the community is not always a benefit to the large properties. Savings for these non-sprinklered structures would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Non-sprinklered buildings with a fire flow of 3500 GPM or less could realize a 5% to 10% reduction in fire insurance rates if a community were to improve from one “grouped” class to another. On the other hand, buildings that are rated and/or coded as sprinklered would receive very little if any reduction in rates. Most insurance companies group Class 1-4 together for these protected properties. Class Rated Commercial Property Most insurance companies group buildings with the same construction and occupancy conditions. ISO class rates non-manufacturing occupancies less than 15,000 square feet in area. This is done to save time and expense by not specifically rating buildings with very predictable characteristics. The PPC of a community has less impact on these class-rated buildings than those buildings that are specifically rated. Special Large Commercial Properties HPR (Highly Protected Risks) are considered a special class of specifically rated properties.
These properties are generally protected by state of the art automatic
sprinkler systems and alarm systems with stringent loss control provisions for testing and maintenance.
These properties’ rate structure is based on the large mutual
insurance company’s premium/loss ratios and not much on the PPC although that may be sub-criteria in underwriting decision-making. There would be little impact on the rate 236
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
structure of these properties unless a PPC change was from one “grouped” rate to another. On the other hand, if a community had a sub-standard PPC such as a Class 7 or lower, then HPR risks would most probably not be located in that community. Self-insured properties, including government buildings and very large companies such as Home Depot and National Cash Register, are not a part of the regular insurance process and would probably not be affected by a PPC change. Generally, the overall amount of fire insurance savings for a community is probably not significant without a major change in the community’s grading. Implementation Costs Implementation costs would be associated with a department/community planning effort to implement a creative, efficient, cost effective, all risk community protection program. Potential Future Savings Reduction in the various costs required to provide the often-excessive infrastructure and staffing requirements of the ISO grading schedule. Political Considerations
•
Education of policy makers and their constituents that the ISO Grading schedule is not the Holy Grail for assessing their fire department.
•
Achieving endorsement of modern, national standards relating to fire department accreditation.
•
Potential increase in private fire insurance costs if a significantly degraded Fire Protection Rating by ISO resulted.
Primary Actions Steps and Timeline
•
Assignment of a representative department/community group to develop a strategic plan for future all risk community protection – twelve months
•
Review and approval of the plan – three months
•
Implementation of the plan – twelve months and on going
237
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Meld The Life Safety Responsibilities Of Law Enforcement And Fire/Rescue Protection The need for law enforcement services is ever increasing while the need for traditional fire suppression forces is ever decreasing.
The area of overlap between law
enforcement and fire protection is life safety. Under this strategy, law enforcement and fire protection personnel would be co-trained in those life safety areas where they could complement each other in accomplishing their community life safety responsibilities. Examples of melding life safety responsibilities might be fire detection and suppression system inspection/monitoring, first responder EMS, enforcement of minor community laws as law enforcement resources are called to higher priority crimes, etc. Implementation Costs Implementation costs would be associated with the training and equipping of public safety personnel to address melded life safety responsibilities Potential Future Savings Reduction in community cost for life safety by melding certain law enforcement and fire protection responsibilities Political Considerations Achieving “buy-in” by law enforcement and fire/rescue entities. Primary Actions Steps and Timeline
•
Assignment of a lead person and appropriate group to develop the program.
•
Development time – three months
•
Review and approval – three months
•
Implementation – twelve months
Organize Multi-Agency Personnel Pools To Handle Extensive Demands Made Upon The Public Safety Delivery System Fire department, police, life safety, pre-hospital care providers, public works personnel, and other appropriate personnel would be cross-trained and organized to handle major disasters, crisis, multiple or simultaneous incidents, or high incident time periods.
238
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Implementation Costs Implementation costs would associate with the training and equipping of public safety personnel to accomplish the personnel pool responsibilities. Potential Future Savings Reduction of cost associated with maintaining large quantities of additional personnel within each agency for disasters or special incidents, in addition to maintaining the resources needed for the on-going, simultaneous, everyday response responsibilities. This reduction in cost reflects a compensation reduction to the fire department for increased staffing. Salaries and expenses for agencies participating in the “Pool” could be born by those agencies, but the cross-trained manpower pool could decrease the impact to each individual agency. Political Considerations
•
Multi-agency “buy-in.”
•
Funding approval
Primary Actions Steps and Timeline
•
Assignment of a lead person and appropriate group to develop the program.
•
Development time – three months
•
Review and approval – three months
•
Implementation – twelve months
Develop Or Enhance Relationships, Partnerships, And Cooperation With Educational Institutions And Networks “To the extent that law enforcement is more of a profession than the fire service, it is so largely because of its inherently close association with the legal profession. Similarly, EMS providers, both within and outside the fire service, are driven to greater professionalism through constant contact with highly educated medical professionals” (Fire Chief Magazine, September 1993, page 51)
“…the practical reality of the (fire) truck floor can be expanded upon…, fused with a global awareness…,attached to an educational network…, can emerge and evolve into a viable response to today’s realities” -John W. Lawton
239
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Requiring entry firefighters to have a minimum of a two-year degree is the first step in developing and enhancing relationships, partnerships, and cooperation with educational institutions and networks. Higher education commensurate with promotion to higher rank and responsibility may be the second step. Especially in the Alachua County region, where educational institutions are prevalent and highly influential in community decision-making, the fire service should consider establishing a fire station in cooperation with an educational institution as a learning and research laboratory.
This cooperative facility would provide a resource for students
enrolled in a life-safety related fields and offer an interface with the operational aspect of the fire service. The operational fire service would enhance its relationship with academia. Implementation Costs Startup costs could be spread across multiple agencies or in lieu of providing services at no cost. Significant grant funding could be available for this concept between academia and the fire service. Potential Future Savings
•
Reduction in cost of operating a coop fire station using those funds and resources provided by educational institutions
•
Additional savings realized by a more efficient, effective, safer and increasingly educated fire department
Political Considerations Achieving “buy-in” from involved entities Primary Actions Steps and Timeline
•
Assignment of a lead person and appropriate group to develop the program.
•
Development time – three months
•
Review and approval – twelve months
•
Implementation – twenty-four months
240
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Risk Mitigation Strategies Some organizational or community strategies target the reduction in risk or probability of fire and emergency medical incidents rather than the efficiency of the agency which responds. The following strategies are offered for consideration, primarily by the elected or appointed officials. They typically represent a departure, in some cases a significant departure, from traditional approaches to the fire and medical emergency problem. The public is slow to change their perceptions of traditional services provided by local government, so it can be anticipated that implementation of risk mitigation strategies often meet with resistance and a desire to return to traditional service models.
Residential Fire Sprinklers Mandate Fire departments continue to be forced to protect larger areas with the same or fewer resources. As a result, alternatives to traditional fire protection techniques must be found. One major consideration is the mandate of residential fire sprinklers. Residential fire sprinklers are the answer to fewer fatalities and injuries to residents and firefighters, reducing the future requirement of additional firefighters and fire stations, and allowing longer response times from fire stations to name a few. Implementation Costs Implementation costs for requiring the installation of residential fire sprinklers in new and/or existing residential properties in Alachua County would result from the costs for staff time and resources required to accomplish State Fire Code exceptions for the mandate, and the enhancement of existing County entities to facilitate the development authorization review and inspection process to facilitate the requirement. Potential Future Savings •
Reduction in fire fatalities and injuries to residents and firefighters
•
Smaller fire department resource requirement
•
Reduced insurance costs for fire sprinklered structures
•
Reduced real estate taxes for sprinklered structures
•
Zoning – fire sprinklered buildings could be built on smaller parcels of land
•
Reduced construction costs (construction alternatives)
241
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Political Considerations •
State Fire Code modification
•
Interface with special interest groups (i.e. homebuilders)
•
New vs. existing properties mandate
Primary Actions Steps and Timelines •
Formulation of community coalition to determine community needs [180 days]
•
Formulation of Florida Fire Code exception for submittal to State [30 days]
•
Facilitation of Fire Code exception process [180 days]
•
Enhance development authorization review resources for implementation of requirement [90 days]
Ordinance Establishing Fire Department Control of Detection and Suppression System Control Boxes Under such an ordinance, the fire department would be the only entity that could unlock and/or open system control boxes in order to ensure fire detection and suppression systems are consistently operational. When owners and contractors desired access for service and other legitimate reasons, a fire department representative would be required to grant them initial access to the system and to re-secure the control box when their task was complete. This would ensure the systems were operational, provide for monitoring tests and inspections of the systems, increased fire department knowledge of and familiarization with the systems, and prevent premature reset of systems prior to fire department arrival when systems were actuated. An additional benefit would be the potential reduction in false alarm activations as a result of system manipulation by unqualified personnel. Implementation Costs
•
The costs associated with configuring control boxes with appropriate locking mechanisms compatible with the fire department. This could be the responsibility of the owner/occupant similar to “Key Vault” requirements.
•
Staff and other fire department resources associated with addressing scheduled requests to open the boxes.
242
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Potential Future Savings
•
Reduction in life and property loss associated with operational detection and suppression systems.
•
Reduction in fire department cost and losses associated with controlling fires expanding beyond their incipient stage when systems are not operational.
Political Considerations
•
Achieving local enabling legislation
•
Achieving labor unions “buy-in”
Primary Actions Steps and Timeline
•
Assignment of a lead person and appropriate group to develop the program.
•
Development time – three months
•
Departmental review and approval – three months
•
Achieve ordinance – Twelve months
•
Implementation – Six months
Tiered Intervention Model Rural areas within Alachua County pose a significant problem for emergency providers. Serving the structural fire protection needs in remote areas is a challenging and expensive endeavor. To address improvements in the level of structural fire protection in the rural areas of the county, we offer a strategy called the Tiered Intervention Model (TIM) designed to impart a planned degree of risk mitigation assistance to unprotected areas. This model is based on two assumed fire protection goals for rural areas. The proposed goals are designed to be challenging. The achievement of the goals should be a creative process, and should not be dampened by the human tendency to say, “We can’t.” To be fully effective, goals should flirt with the boundary between possible and impossible. Goal #1 - Prevent any fire-related human injury or death. Goal #2 - Prevent any fire in an occupied structure from progressing beyond the incipient fire phase.
243
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
TIM represents an acknowledgment of the diversity of the fire hazard within the Alachua County region. The model is intended to focus the fire protection system on prevention of fire and injury, particularly in those areas where fire protection is provided at a rural level, with extended response times.
The model is best though of as a pyramid
containing five levels trending from very proactive measures at the top, to mostly reactive actions at the base. Figure 38: Tiered Intervention Model Conceptual Drawing
Proactive Protection
Remote Areas Prevent
Urban Protection
Detect and Escape
Reactive Protection
Detect, Extinguish, and Respond Detect, Respond, and Extinguish Respond and Extinguish
Each level of the model includes an aggressive public education and fire prevention effort. Likewise, each level of the model would include some level of emergency response by firefighters. However, the top level of the model, containing the most rural and remote areas where incident response has the least opportunity for rapid intervention, places the greatest emphasis and focus on public education and fire prevention programs. Middle-levels of the model rely heavily on engineered systems (long-life battery smoke detection hardwired and enunciated smoke detection, residential fire sprinklers, and commercial automatic fire sprinklers) and less heavily on response by personnel and equipment. The base of the model, while still emphasizing education and prevention, represents the more traditional approach of dependence on the 9-1-1 system and a response by firefighters and fire trucks.
244
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Implementation Costs
•
Administrative and support staff to oversee and carry out the objectives of the program
•
Under this model, it is conceivable that government and policymakers may find it more effective to invest in automatic fire detection and sprinkler technology in rural and frontier residential enclaves rather than in the traditional method of fire protection. The comparatively few numbers of homes in some of the unprotected areas may represent a high life-hazard due to the lack of reliable response and distance from other resources. Inexpensive (under $20), long-life smoke detectors (with hush feature) reduce fire life-risk significantly. Hard-wired smoke detectors with enunciation to a central-station alarm center lower the hazard even further, but are slightly more expensive. The installation of an NFPA approved 13D residential fire sprinkler system cuts the likelihood of fire injury to insignificant.20 Even the sprinkler system is comparatively inexpensive.
Estimates for retrofitting a home with fire
sprinklers run from $1.50 to $2.00 per square foot of floor area. Including a 13D residential system in new residential construction costs less.
•
Funding for probable grant pool or other mechanism to subsidize or install early detection and suppression equipment in target areas.
Potential Future Savings The application of a TIM-like fire prevention policy within all jurisdictional areas of Alachua County should be addressed as an element of a strategic planning process for fire prevention and code enforcement in both urban and rural areas of Alachua County. The result would place much greater focus on fire prevention and detection efforts in the most rural areas of the County and permit cost avoidance in future fire protection system enhancements to areas with lowest service demand and community fire impact risk.
20
A quick action residential sprinkler system detects and extinguishes an incipient fire before the
fire is able to become life threatening to occupants.
245
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Section V- Financial Strategies Options for Cost Recovery For most emergency service systems, major cost recovery options are limited primarily to Emergency Medical Services, where costs are underwritten by health insurance providers and Medicare. This report has fully recognized the excellent program currently operated by ACFR for ambulance service invoicing. Additional possibilities exist in the area of hazardous materials response, fire suppression response, and code enforcement. Hazardous materials Revenue Some revenue can be gleaned from response to hazardous materials incidents, where “spiller pays” laws often require that departments are reimbursed for their mitigation efforts. However, this is typically limited to actual documented expenditures and, with the exception of very busy hazardous materials teams, provides little in the way of a predictable revenue stream. Existing “spiller pay” laws are currently being utilized by the regional hazardous materials team in which the agencies participate and it is unlikely that significant additional revenue can be anticipated. Fire Suppression Revenue Some fire departments have initiated billing for fire suppression responses, primarily to insured structures. However, most insurance carriers provide very limited coverage for such fees, thus the revenue is rarely worth the political and public relations challenges or the administrative efforts to collect it. As a result, many such efforts have begun and failed. Code Enforcement Revenue Code enforcement efforts often provide the most reliable, consistent and predictable source of revenue aside from EMS. Many communities have established a fee ordinance for their code enforcement division which initiates billing for everything from routine inspections to licenses and plan review. Code enforcement fees such as this can be based on occupancy type (reflecting the relative complexity of the inspection), while plan review fees are often based on the square footage of the structure reviewed. 246
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
While some cost recovery efforts are being conducted with the code enforcement programs of ACFR and GFR, the total revenue collected appears to be negligible. Neither department charges for all inspection services provided and, given the strength of the business and development community, the initiation of such fees may be a public relations challenge. However, given the potential revenue, it may be worth pursuing at some point. The following table demonstrates potential revenue based on sample fees for services and the number of such services performed as reported in the previous year21. The table demonstrates a revenue potential of nearly $184,250 between the two agencies which could be used to offset the costs of their Prevention Divisions. Table 48: Estimated Revenue Potential - Code Enforcement Activity '03 Inspections Initial Inspection Reinspection Plan reviews Occupancy Inspection Total
1228 654 250 500
Sample Fee $ $ $ $
65 45 150 75
Potential Revenue $ $ $ $ $
79,820 29,430 37,500 37,500 184,250
Given the amount of revenue from this source, a fee structure for code enforcement should be considered as a potential sustainable funding source.
Analysis of Current Cost Sharing Methods As described elsewhere in this report, there are two cost-sharing systems currently in place within the Alachua County fire and emergency service systems. The Designated Assistance Agreement (DAA) between Alachua County and the City of Gainesville provides a method whereby costs for providing “closest unit response” to the neighboring jurisdiction can be passed on to that jurisdiction in the form of an annual payment.
21
GFR reported 1800 inspections. The table assumes one third are reinspections.
247
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
The “Fair Share” funding agreement between Alachua County and the smaller agencies with whom it contracts for fire service provides a method whereby costs for operating each agency’s service is shared between ACFR and the home municipality or agency (in the case of private fire departments). “Fair Share” Funding Agreement The general intent of the “Fair Share” Funding Agreement is to share the cost of operation for a particular agency’s fire station with both jurisdictions that receive benefit from its services (i.e., the municipality and the County). The foundation of the sharing formula is the actual number of emergency responses made into either jurisdiction during the previous year. We believe that the actual number of emergency responses is a very poor predictor of fire protection costs. Evidence indicates only a small correlation between the number of emergency responses made by a particular fire department or fire station and the actual cost of providing fire protection. This is because the vast majority of fire protection costs are connected to the preparedness of a fire protection system, rather than the actual use of a fire protection system. After all, a fully staffed fire station with an engine and ladder company that makes 2,000 responses annually costs very little more than an identically staffed station that makes only 100 responses annually. This is because the vast majority of costs are in capital, utilities, training, and staffing that are necessary to keep the doors open and available for a response, whether or not a response is actually ever made. We suggest that the “Fair Share” funding agreements be reconsidered and the cost formula be shifted away from the basis of emergency response quantity and towards the basis of system preparedness cost. The costs of system preparedness are more commonly rooted in the following:
•
The value of the properties being protected
•
The population and population density of the area being protected
•
The overall fire protection risks within the area being protected
This is because these factors tend to drive the need for, as well as the complexity of, the fire protection system that is put in place and prepared for action. 248
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
For this reason, we suggest that assessed value be a primary foundation of the costsharing formula between Alachua County and the smaller municipalities with whom it contracts for service. This could be accomplished in the following manner:
•
Calculate the true annual cost of the operation of any given fire station
•
Calculate the total value of property identified as that station’s primary response area
•
Share the cost of the operation of that fire station by a percentage equal to each jurisdiction’s share of property value protected in its first due area
•
If desired, population and/or population densities could also be considered as a factor.
Should the entities wish to continue using the number of emergency responses as a factor in the funding formula (though we repeat our belief that this is based on flawed theory), then we recommend that the overall formula be divided between the method described above and the method based on emergency response volume by a percentage equal to the amount of time a station sits idle (preparedness) versus the amount of time it is involved in emergency response. For example, if a fire station’s percentage of time out on actual calls amounts to an annual total of 7%, then 7% of the cost-sharing formula for that station would be based on the number of emergency responses made in each jurisdiction and 93% would be based on the method described above. In summary, cost-sharing formulas that are based on quantity of service delivery (emergency responses) do not adequately reflect the true origin of the vast majority of fire protection costs- that of keeping the service available and prepared. In addition, the results of these formulas are volatile and can change drastically from year to year, providing little ability to plan costs in advance. Funding formulas based on sharing the costs of service preparedness on the basis of risk (value and/or lives) protected are far more stable, predictable and enhance financial planning.
249
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Designated Assistance Agreement The general intent of the Designated Assistance Agreement is to artificially “blur” the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Gainesville such that the resources of both the GFD and the ACFR could be used to the benefit of both the City and the unincorporated area. The DAA allowed for “closest unit response”, where the apparatus from one agency would be dispatched to a call within the jurisdiction of the neighboring agency if it were closer to the location of the call than the apparatus of the home agency. A funding formula is contained in the DAA to permit the agency responding to the other’s jurisdiction to be reimbursed for the response. While we agree with the intent of the DAA, we believe that some of its provisions leave room for the agreement to fall short of this intent. Certainly, the idea of a system to permit “closest unit response” is to be commended and reinforces those concepts of shared system planning that have been discussed elsewhere in the report. An interlocal agreement such as this can reduce redundancy in resources and allow service to be improved through the use of adjacent resources. However, the DAA is not without inherent flaws. The primary focus of the funding formula contained in the agreement is the actual number of emergency responses made by either agency into the neighboring jurisdiction. As we discussed in the previous section on the “Fair Share” funding formula, the actual number of emergency responses is a very poor predictor of costs. Evidence indicates little correlation between the number of emergency responses and the cost of providing fire protection. This is because the vast majority of fire protection costs are connected to the preparedness of a fire protection system, rather than the actual use of a fire protection system. At the risk of being repetitive, we repeat our explanation that a fully staffed fire station with an engine and ladder company that makes 2,000 responses annually costs very little more than an identically staffed station that makes only 100 responses annually. This is because the vast majority of costs are in capital, utilities, training, and staffing that are necessary to keep the doors open and available for a response, whether or not a response is actually ever made.
250
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
In addition to the errant focus of the funding formula, the DAA permits either entity to make unilateral decisions regarding areas that will be exempted from the agreement, regardless of proximity to the adjacent agency’s resources. Under the system, the response agreement can be manipulated as a means of cost control, and this appears to have already occurred to some degree. The City of Gainesville has exempted certain areas from a “closest unit response” by ACFR under the argument that the geographic areas that were exempted were generating too many calls that did not need the rapid response provided by “closes unit response”. Exempting the areas decreased the cost to the City under the DAA. We believe that this can be somewhat of a “slippery slope” that can eventually lead to the unraveling of the DAA itself. If one entity exempts areas from “closest unit response”, thus shifting more cost to the other, the second agency may do the same in an effort to shift cost back. Eventually, this leads a complete “missing of the point”- that being to deliver fire protection to both entities from the closest available resources. If autonomous operation of GFR and ACFR is going to continue into the future, we recommend that the DAA be renegotiated and the cost formula be shifted away from the basis of emergency response quantity and towards the basis of system preparedness cost. As indicated earlier, the costs of system preparedness are more commonly rooted in the following:
•
The value of the properties being protected
•
The population and population density of the area being protected
•
The overall fire protection risks within the area being protected
251
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
For this reason, we would suggest that assessed value be a primary foundation of the funding formula under the DAA. This could be accomplished in the following manner:
•
Calculate the true annual cost of the operation of any given fire station
•
Calculate the total value of property protected by that station in its “first due” response area (that area to which it will be the closest responder)
•
Share the cost of the operation of that fire station by the share of property value protected in its first due area
•
If desired, population and/or population densities could also be considered as a factor.
Under this system, administrative costs and overhead need not be considered since both entities are providing this across their systems in a relatively equal fashion. Efforts to quantify administrative and support overhead will likely only open the cost-sharing formula to dispute and would probably result in insignificant cost impact. One argument under the current DAA formula is that equal costs don’t always mean equal services. An additional benefit of the funding formula proposed above is that it inherently passes on any differences in station or fire company capabilities. In other words, if one entity staffs its company at a lower level than the other, the reduced cost of such a fire company is passed on to the adjacent agency through the cost-sharing formula. Again, should the entities wish to continue using the number of emergency responses as a factor in the funding formula (though we repeat our belief that this is based on flawed theory), then we recommend that the overall formula be divided between the method described above and the method based on emergency response volume by a percentage equal to the amount of time a station sits idle (preparedness) versus the amount of time it is involved in emergency response. For example, if a fire station’s percentage of time out on actual calls amounts to an annual total of 7%, then 7% of the cost-sharing formula for that station would be based on the number of emergency responses made in each jurisdiction and 93% would be based on the method described above.
252
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
In summary, we repeat that cost-sharing formulas that are based on quantity of service delivery (emergency responses) do not adequately reflect the true origin of the vast majority of fire protection costs- that of keeping the service available and prepared. In addition, the results of these formulas are volatile and can change drastically from year to year, providing little ability to plan costs in advance. Funding formulas based on sharing the costs of service preparedness on the basis of risk (value and/or lives) protected are far more stable, predictable and enhance financial planning.
Tax Rate Variations By Level Of Service During the course of this study, there was much discussion on the concept of varying the level of tax rate applied to properties based on which level of service delivery that the property fell into. In other words, under this concept there would be as many as three different fire protection tax rates, one for rural areas receiving the rural service delivery class, one for suburban areas receiving the suburban service delivery class, and one for urban areas receiving the urban service delivery class. The theory is relatively simple: those receiving what would be perceived as lower levels of service should pay a lower price than those receiving higher levels of service. However, reality differs from this theory. This is primarily because, while the cost of providing a rural fire protection system may be significantly lower than an urban fire protection system, the reality is that there are far lower assessed values over which this cost is spread. The result is that while overall costs go down, the share of this cost on an assessed value basis goes up. This can be easily seen in the following analysis. Using today’s fire protection system costs (as calculated earlier in this study), we compared the average costs for those departments serving rural, undeveloped areas against those serving suburban (mixed) and urban areas. The figures represent statistical distribution of actual costs and are not intended to reflect current tax rates.
253
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Table 49: Average Fire Protection Cost By Service Delivery Class Average Fire Protection Costs- Current Cost @ Cost per $1000 capita Value Rural $ 1.88 $ 70.88 Suburban $ 2.17 $ 82.29 Urban $ 2.13 $ 106.31
The chart demonstrates that the actual cost per capita for providing fire protection does, indeed, rise sharply for suburban and urban areas, a variation of as much as 34%. However, since fire protection costs are distributed by assessed value of the property protected, it’s more important to note that the cost per $1,000 of assessed value varies by a maximum of only 13%. This analysis supports our conclusion that the fire protection system within Alachua County can continue to use a single shared rate without an unreasonable burden on rural taxpayers. Any decision to use a variation in rates by service delivery class should result in only a minor variation, at most.
254
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Appendices Appendix A: Apparatus Condition Assessment Definitions The following table describes the conditions that result in various condition assessments during the evaluation of apparatus.
Excellent: Good:
Fair:
Serviceable:
Poor:
Like new condition. No body or paint defects. Clean compartmentation. Interior, cab complete and in full working order with no modifications. No significant defect history. Age is less than 25% of life expectancy. Body and cab have good appearance with no rust and only minor cosmetic defects or dents. Clean compartmentation with no visible rust or corrosion. Interior, cab is in full working order and good appearance. Normal maintenance history with no significant defects or high downtime. Age is less than 75% of life expectancy. Body and cab have weathered appearance with minor surface rust and some cosmetic defects or dents. Unimpeded compartmentation with only surface rust or corrosion. Interior, cab is in reasonable working order and appearance. Only repairable tank or plumbing leakage. Showing increasing age-related maintenance, but with no major defects or unreasonable downtime. Age is less than 100% of life expectancy. Body and cab have weathered appearance with surface corrosion, cosmetic defects or dents, and minor rust-through of non-structural metals (body panels). Unimpeded compartmentation with significant surface rust or corrosion and/or minor rust-through (not affecting use). Interior, cab is in rough, but working order, often with local repairs or modifications to compensate for problems. Occasional or intermittent tank or plumbing leakage. Showing increasing age-related maintenance, but with no major defects or unreasonable downtime. Most service parts still available. Age is greater than 100% of life expectancy. Body and cab have weathered appearance with surface corrosion, cosmetic defects or dents, and visible rust-through of non-structural metals (body panels). Significant rust or corrosion is present in structural or support members. Use of compartmentation is impeded with significant corrosion and rust-through. Interior, cab is in rough condition with defects impeding safe and proper use. Unrepairable tank or plumbing leakage. Problematic age-related maintenance, major defects or unreasonable downtime are evident. Service parts difficult or impossible to obtain. Age is greater than 100% of life expectancy. Vehicle exceeds its GVWR.
255
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Appendix B: Summary of Public and Stakeholder Input In preparing the specifications of this study, Alachua County officials placed great emphasis on providing opportunities for the public to voice input into the future of fire and emergency medical services. In response, ESCi developed and received approval for a Public and Stakeholders Input Plan (PSIP) to accomplish the following:
•
Increase public awareness of the fire and EMS system master planning process
•
Inform interested members of the public regarding the study methodology and anticipated end product
•
Encourage input from members of the public on issues such as current service satisfaction, service delivery levels, concerns about service providers, and measurements of service excellence
•
Identify elected or appointed officials and decision-makers considered to be “stakeholders” in the current service delivery system
•
Provide adequate opportunity for one-on-one interviews with “stakeholders” to encourage input
•
Review the responses of “stakeholders” to assess the basic values exhibited with regard to fire and emergency medical services, as well as system-wide cooperation and integration in emergency services
Under the PSIP, six geographically diverse public meetings were conducted throughout Alachua County, with accompanying public notice, media releases, and newspaper and public access television advertising. An ESCi facilitator conducted each meeting using audio-visual presentations and graphics. Printed input survey forms were used to guide consistent collection of opinions. The meetings lasted an average of one hour and fifteen minutes. The following table lists meeting dates, locations, and times: Date April 20, 2004 April 20, 2004 April 21, 2003 April 21, 2004 April 22, 2004 April 22, 2004
Time 5:30pm 5:30pm 6:00pm 6:00pm 6:30pm 6:30pm
Location Kanapaha Middle School Auditorium Hawthorne City Commission Room Newberry City Commission Room (and cable TV) Alachua County Health Department Alachua City Commission Room Alachua County Commission Room
256
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Attendance at the public meetings was somewhat disappointing. The total of attendance at all six sessions was only ten persons22. Two sessions, the Kanapaha Middle School and Alachua County Health Department meetings, received no attendance at all. Regardless of the minimal attendance, those present seemed genuinely interested in the planning process and appreciative of their opportunity to participate. Overall attendance by the attendee’s place of residence was as follows: Residency Location Hawthorne Windsor Alachua County (unincorporated) Newberry
Attendees 3 1 1 5
During the public input meetings, respondents were asked to rank, in order of greatest personal priority, the expectations that they have for the fire and emergency medical services system and its planning efforts. The survey instrument used required each participant to rank each listed service expectation against every other service expectation until all had been cross-ranked against each other. Results were tabulated into the following chart, indicating the overall relative ranking of service expectations the public wished to express as part of the planning process.
22
The figures shown count “citizen” attendees only and do not include elected, appointed, or
agency officials and staff, several of whom did attend the input sessions.
257
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Service Performance Expectations Fast response of emergency medical unit Availability of Advanced Life Support medical care Arrival with professional, certified responders No increase in relative cost of service Fast response of fire fighting unit Use of advanced methods to reduce community risk Arrival with advanced, state-of-the-art apparatus and equipment
0
10
20
30
40
50
The results, though not statistically valid due to low attendance, do seem to indicate that the rapid arrival of emergency medical response at the ALS level is of the highest priority to those responding to the survey instrument. Respondents ranked those expectations, along with the use of professional, certified responders, above the desire to hold costs at their current level. However, faster response of fire fighting units ranked below the importance of holding costs, as did the importance of advanced, state-of-the-art equipment. The relatively low ranking of advanced community risk mitigation methods demonstrates that the public continues to have a tendency toward trusting traditional reactive methods of fire protection. In addition to the survey tabulated above, narrative feedback in text form was requested and encouraged. Text responses were received from all citizens in attendance. The following sections summarize the responses received in response to the survey questions. Concerns Regarding Your Fire and EMS Services As They Exist Today “We need a closer medical unit to Newberry” “Worried about funding. The decrease in taxable lands means either reduced funding or reduced services” “What will we do when our City can no longer afford fire service?”
258
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
“I think we are subsidizing long-distance medical transport services” “The constant demand for calls out of the City keep our units too far away” “I am satisfied with the location of services and who pays, but I am somewhat concerned about continuing loss of property. I am very disturbed by the removal of EMS on SR 27/41. The response time of EMS transport to residents in the City of Newberry is a grave concern” “Newberry doesn’t want Gainesville or Alachua County telling them what to do- this is a longstanding sentiment.” “Newberry has only 3,500 residents and fire department budget of nearly $1 million. In addition to an unfair assessment fee, our entire millage rate is necessary to fund the fire department- and it’s still not enough. That speaks for itself”
Positive Feedback or Strengths Regarding Fire and EMS Services “We have great interlocal agreements” “The people take time to show care for their patient and do what is best for them” “My experience has been positive. I commend the emergency services” “The service is well-staffed” “They seem very anxious to serve and respond to those in need” “I am satisfied with the services received in Newberry” “We have a few good firemen”
Concerns Regarding the Future Development of Fire and EMS Services “I don’t want to see Newberry lose medical coveraged” “I am concerned that as population increases in western Alachua County, funds will be diverted from the eastern sections” “Ability of cities to keep up with costs” “Can we afford the cost of future development?”
259
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
“Before addressing future development concerns, you must, at the very least, first identify the true problem.” “Alachua County is not a concern of Newberry. We have our own fire department”
Stakeholder input was addressed through personal interviews with one or more members of the ESCi Project Team. Every effort was made to provide adequate opportunities for interview meetings to be conducted either through the course of data collection or by means of individual and group appointments. Letters were sent to each municipality requesting the facilitation of appointments for elected officials, managers, and/or senior staff. In response to these efforts to meet with stakeholders, over fifty-three individuals representing policy, management, and labor categories provided input and reflection on the process. These individuals represented the following organizations and are to be commended for their constructive and candid comments: Alachua County City of Archer City of Alachua Gainesville FD LaCrosse FD Windsor FD IAFF Local 3852
City of Gainesville City of Waldo City of Newberry High Springs FD Micanopy FD Waldo FD
Town of Micanopy City of Hawthorne Alachua County FD Newberry FD Cross Creek FD Melrose FD IAFF Local 2157
260
Alachua County, Florida
Fire/EMS Services Master Plan
Appendix C: Report Maps
261
#
### #
###
#
## # #
#
#
# ## ### ###
#
#
# ## # #
#
#
# #
# Y
# # ##### #
#
#
## #
# ## ## # # # # # # # ################ ## # #### ####### ## # # #### ### ## #### ######## # # # # # ### ###### # # # ## ############ # # ## ### ## # # ###### # # #
Response Activity By Geography - 2003
#
# Y
#
#
# # #
# ## ## # ## ### # ######## ### # ### #### #### #### #### ## ## ## # # #### # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # ##
Z $
#
#
#
# ##
##
#
#
#
##
#
#
Z $
Z $
[ %
[ %
[ %
Z $
[ %
[ %
[ %
#### ###### ## ## # ###
# Y
#
# ### ## ## # # ##### # # # # #### # # # # ## ### # # # ## # ## # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # ##### ## ### # ## # ## # ## # # # ## ## ### ## # # # ## ####### ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # ## # #### #### # # # # ########## ####### ## ###### ### # ####### # ###### #### ## ### # # ### ##### # # # ### ### ## ### # ### # # # # # # # # #### ### # # # # #### # # # ###### ######## # ## # ##### # ###### ##### ### # # # ######## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # ######### # # #### # ### ## ### ## # # ## ## # # # ## # # ######## ## ### ###### ## ########### # #### ## ## # # # #### ### ## ## ##### ## # ##### ### ## ##### # ## # ## # ## ## #### # ### ### ### ########### #### ### # # ####### ### # # # ## ## ## ## # ### ############ ## ##### ###### ######### ### # ## ## ##### ##### ###### ### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ###### ### # ####### ############ ## ## ### # ## # ## ##### ## # ## # ##### ###### ##### ##### ## ############### # ##### ## ##### ##### ### ##### # # ########## # # ####### ######## # ## #### ### ##### ### ##### ### ## # ######### ## # ## #### ## ## ## ################ ## ## ## ## ## # ## ## ### # ######## # ### ### ## #### ## ##### ## ## ###### # # # ## # # ## ### ## ### ## ## ### ## ## ### ## #### #### ## #### # ### # # # # # ###### # ### # # # # # # ### # #### # # # # ## # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # ######### ######### ##### ####### ## ## ## ######### # ## ## ## ## # ### ## ###### ## ###### # # # # ## ### ### #### ## # # ## ##### ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ###### # ##### ### ### ############# ### ###### ######### ### ## ## # ## # # # # # ##### ## ################### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ####### ## ## ######### ### ## ########## ## ######## ######## ### # # ## ######## ###### # #### ########### ## ### # ## # ## ### ## # # ###### ## ### ## # ##### # ### ## #### ######### ## #### ## ## # #### ## #### ## ####### ## ## ## ###### # ################ ##### ### # ### ###### ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ####### ### ### # ## ##### # # ### ######## #### # ### # ## ### # ## ## ### ### # ##### ### ### ### ## #### # #### ## # # ### ########### ## #### ## ## ## ### ### ## ### ## #### ## ## #### # # ### ## ### ## # ## ### ## ## #### #### ### # ## # ## ### ## ### ##### ## ## ## # # # # # ### # ##### ##### # ## ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ###### ### # # # ################## # ###### # ###### # ### ## # ##### ## ## # ####### # ## ###### # ### ### # ## ### ### # ##### # ## ###### #### # ####### ## ## # ### ### ## ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #### #### ## ######### ##### # ## # ############## #### ### # #### # ####### ## ## # ##### ## # ### ### ##### ### # ###### ### # # ## # ## ### # ## ### # ## ### # # # ## # ## # # ##### #### # ###### # ## ###### ## #### # # ####### ## ### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ######## ###### ######### # # # ### ####### # # ## #### # # ### ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ### #### # ############## ### # ## ###### # # ## # ### # ##### ####### ### # ### #### # # # ## ## # # # ## #### # ####### # ### # # # # # # # # # ## # ## ## # ## # # # # # # # ## ### # ### # # ## # ######## # ### ### ### # # # ## # # # # # # # ### ## # ##### # # ### # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # # ##### # # # # # # ## # ## # ## ## ### #### ## ## # ## # # # # # # #### # # # # # # ### ## # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # ######## ##### # # # # # ## # ## # # #### #### ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # #
# Y
#
# #
#
## # #### #### #
[ %
#
#
##
Z $
Z $
##
# ## ## ###
# #
# #
# # #
# #
# Y
## # #### ###
#
#
# #
#
##
# # #### ## #
# #
# Y ##
# # #
# # # # #
## # ## # #
# ### # ##
##
# ### # # ### ## # ## ##
Z $ # #
##
#
#
#
# Y
Incident locations ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations
#
##
Z $
# H [ ^
##### # #
## ## #
# #
##
#### # ### #
# #
# Y # Y
## ##
#
262
Response Time Capability Of Current Fire Deployment
# Y # Y
Z $
# Y
# Y
[ %
Z $
# Y
[ % [ %
Z $ Z $
[ % [ %
[ %
[ %
Z $
# Y
Z $
Z $
Z $ # Y Urban area Suburban area Rural area Roads within 1.5 miles of a fire station Roads within 2.5 miles of a fire station H [ ^
# Y # Y
Roads within 7.5 miles of a fire station ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations
263
Response Time Capability Of Current EMS Deployment
# Y # Y
\ &
Z $
# Y
\ &
[ %
Z $ \ &
# Y
# Y
\ &
[ % [ %
Z $ \ & \ & Z $
\ & \ [ % &
[ % [ %
[ %
Z $
# Y
\ &
Z $ \ &
\ & Z $
Z $
H [ ^ \
Roads within 1.5 miles of a EMS station Roads within 2.5 miles of a EMS station Roads within 7.5 miles of a EMS station ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations Rescue stations
# Y # Y # Y
264
Future Service Delivery Class Planning Zones
# Y # Y
\ &
Z $
# Y
\ &
[ %
Z \ &$
# Y
# Y
\ &
[ % [ %
Z \ &$ \ &$ Z
\ & \ [ % &
[ % [ %
[ %
Z $
# Y
\ &
Z \ &$
\ &$ Z
Z $ # Y # Y Key
Area Designation Urban area Suburban area Rural area
Response Time Performance Objective 4 minutes or less, 80% of the time 6 minutes or less, 80% of the time 15 minutes or less, 80% of the time
H [ ^ \
ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations Rescue stations
# Y
265
Recommended Fire Deployment Plan
# Y # Y
Z $
# Y
Z $ [ %
Z $ [ %
Z $ Z $
# Y
[ %
[ %
[ % [ % [ %
Z $
# Y
[ % [ %
Z $
# Y
Z $ Z $
Z $
Z $ # Y # Y H [ ^
ACFR fire stations Gainesville fire stations Other fire stations 1.5 mile service area coverage
Urban area Suburban area Rural area 2 mile service area coverage
# Y
266
Recommended EMS Deployment Plan
# Y # Y
] ' Z $
# Y
Z $ [ %
] '
Z '$ ] [ %
$ ]Z ' Z '$ ]
# Y
[ %
Z $
[ % [ ]% '
[ ]% ' [ ]% '
# Y
] '
[ %
[ %
Z $
# Y
Z $
'$ ] Z
'$ ] Z
Z $ # Y
K
Urban area Suburban area Rural area Rescue location
# Y # Y
267
